On perusal of the query, it was noted that the appellant had sought information regarding the timeline for transfer of shares from Karvy to J M Financial account. It was also found that the same is in the nature of eliciting a clarification or opinion regarding a future event, which cannot be construed as an information available on record.
It was understood that the respondent is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. Appellate Authority found that the said query cannot be construed as seeking ‘information’ as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
Consequently, the respondent did not have an obligation to provide such clarification under the RTI Act. In this context, reference is made to the matter of Vineet Pandey vs. CPIO, United India Insurance Company Limited (Judgment dated January 21, 2021), wherein similar observations were made by the Hon’ble CIC. Further, it also appears that the appellant has grievance regarding transfer/payment of money back into his account after filing closure form.
In this context, Mr Baiwar noted that the Hon’ble CIC, in plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, (CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated February 17, 2012), Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna v. LIC of India, Lucknow (CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated September 06, 2012) and Mr. H.K. Bansal v. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL (CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated January 29, 2013), has held that the Right to Information Act, 2005 is not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes. In view of these observations, it was found that if the appellant has any grievance, the remedy for the same would not lie under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Notwithstanding the above, it was found that the respondent has adequately guided the appellant to refer to the SCORES website for lodging any grievance and also provided helpline service numbers launched by SEBI, to facilitate replies to various queries of the general public on matters relating to securities market. Appellate Authority also found that the application has been adequately addressed by the respondent. Accordingly, Mr Baiwar did not find any deficiency in the response.
In view of the above-made observations, the Appeal was accordingly dismissed since the appellate authority found that there was no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
