BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
(Under the Right to Information Act, 2005)
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Appeal No. 1474 of 2012
Amit N. Shah
:
Appellant
:
Respondent
Vs.
CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai
ORDER
1.
The appellant had filed an application dated April 09, 2012, under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The respondent, vide letter dated May 17, 2012, responded to the
appellant. The appellant has filed this appeal dated May 29, 2012 (received on June 13,
2012) against the said response.
2.
I have carefully examined the application, the response of the respondent and the appeal
and find that the matter can be decided based on the material available on record.
3.
I note that the appellant had sought action taken by SEBI on his 4 complaints against M/s.
Blazon Marbles Ltd. (formerly known as M/s. Shubham Granites Ltd. and hereinafter
referred to as 'the company') and also asked what investigation was done by SEBI in
respect of his 4 complaints referred to in his application with following reference
numbers:(a) SEBIIP/GJ12/0000270/1,
(b) SEBIIE/GJ11/0000322/1,
(c) SEBIIE/MH11/0004273/1 ,and
(d) SEBIIE/MH11/0004508/1
4.
As regards the first three complaints of the appellant, the respondent informed the
appellant that they were taken up with the company and were pending as on date. The
respondent also provided copies of letters dated October 06, 2011, December 19, 2011 and
February 27, 2012 written by company to the appellant wherein the company had sought
certain details/documents from the appellant in order to resolve his complaints. As regards
fourth complaint, the responded informed the appellant that his compliant was uploaded
Page 1 of 3 on SEBI Complaint Redress System ( SCORES) and forwarded to BSE; and the same was
pending with BSE.
5.
In the appeal, the appellant has submitted that the copies of the documents provided to
him by the respondent were not readable and has contended that he was already aware of
the status of his first three complaints and in his application, he wanted to know as to what
investigation is being done by SEBI in those complaints. He has, further, submitted that as
per the reply of the company furnished to him by the respondent, the shares purchased by
him were forfeited in the year 1998. In this connection, according to the appellant he had
asked the company through a letter about the details of procedure the company had
followed before and after forfeiture of the shares. This letter was submitted to SEBI
Ahmedabad Office but that letter has not been mentioned in the response of the
respondent. As regards the response of the respondent with respect to the fourth
complaint, the appellant has submitted that, he had asked the details from BSE and if the
BSE is taking five months time and not responding to the appellant, how can he expect a
reply from the company. The appellant has contended that he had not asked for status of
his complaints, rather he had asked what action was taken by SEBI on his complaints.
6.
I note that either in the appeal or in the application, the appellant has not given any detail
of the letter written by him to the company and also submitted to SEBI (Ahmedabad
Office), as contended by him. I find this contention is vague and uncertain and beyond the
information request made by him. I, further, find that the respondent had informed to the
appellant about the action taken by SEBI on his complaints till the date of the response
and had provided him the available documents. I, therefore, find that the respondent
provided the information to the appellant that was available as on the date of response and
thus, the response of the respondent to the application of the appellant is complete within
the scope of 'information' and 'right to information' under the RTI Act.
7.
I have seen the copies of documents furnished by the respondent to the appellant and note
that many of them are blurred. However, I note that the appellant has been able to read the
response of the company wherein the company had informed him about forfeiture of
shares and advised him to contact his previous management along with the proof of
payment of call money and the purchase or subscription of those shares. Nevertheless, I
direct the respondent to furnish clear copies of all those documents again to the appellant
Page 2 of 3 within 15 working days of the receipt of this order. While furnishing these copies, the
respondent shall be at liberty to provide the information about action taken, if any, on the
complaints after the response was given to the appellant on May 17, 2012.
8.
I, further, find that if the appellant is aggrieved by the action taken on his complaints or the
action taken by the company in the matter of forfeiting the shares, the RTI Act is not the
forum for redressal of the same. The appellant may approach the relevant forum including
pursuing through SCORES or court of law for such redressal instead of approaching the
authorities under the RTI Act.
9.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Place: Mumbai
Date: July 5th, 2012
RAJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL
APPELLATE AUTHORITY
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Page 3 of 3