Judgment :- 1. The petitioner being investor is investing in the share market, mutual funds and other schemes for the past several years. In the year 2006, ABM Amro Bank (now known as Royal Bank of Scotland NV) with whom the petitioner holds an account informed the petitioner about the investment opportunities in art funds. It was recommended to the petitioner to make investment in the then newly launched Osian Art Fund Scheme Contemporary-1. The fund was established in the year 2006 by Osian's Conoisseur of Art as a private trust, under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, whereas Osian's Conoisseur of Art Private limited was established in the year 2000, as an art institution with an auction house and wealth management service for the arts. 2. The petitioner was informed that Osian Art Fund had launched the scheme with a corpus of Rs.102 crores investing in 142 artists including art masters like M.F.Hussain, V.S.Gaitonde, F.N.Souza S.H. Raza. The petitioner was given to understand that he could reap good profits from investment in the scheme. Believing the representation by the respondent, the petitioner invested a sum of Rs.25 lakhs (Rupees twenty five lakhs) through ABN Amro Bank, Chennai for the period of three years, which was thereafter extended by six months. 3. The submission of the petitioner is that the maturity value amount was fixed as Rs.29,27,500/-. On expiry of period under the scheme, inspite of completion of the formalities, the Osian Art Fund had failed to pay the amount to the petitioner. The petitioner therefore filed a complaint under Section 11 AA of the Securities and Exchange Board of Indian Act, 1992 for investigation, vide order dated 31st January, 2011, the petitioner's complaint was rejected, on the ground that the Art Fund did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Board. The petitioner was informed that the complaint stood referred to the Regional Director (Western Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Mumbai. 4. The letter issued by the Securities and Exchange Board of India to the petitioner, reads as under: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA OFFICE OF INVESTOR ASSISTANCE AND EDUCATION POST BOX NO.8140, BANDRA EAST POST OFFICE MUMBAI – 400 051. ACK.REF.NO.2011/0005931/01 DATED 24.1.2011 DATE:31.1.2011 A.K.MUTHUSWAMY, 30, BISHOP GARDEN RAJA ANNAMALAI PURAM, CHENNAI, INDIA, 600 028. 4. The letter issued by the Securities and Exchange Board of India to the petitioner, reads as under: SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA OFFICE OF INVESTOR ASSISTANCE AND EDUCATION POST BOX NO.8140, BANDRA EAST POST OFFICE MUMBAI – 400 051. ACK.REF.NO.2011/0005931/01 DATED 24.1.2011 DATE:31.1.2011 A.K.MUTHUSWAMY, 30, BISHOP GARDEN RAJA ANNAMALAI PURAM, CHENNAI, INDIA, 600 028. UNIT : OSIAN ART FUND SUBJECT : COMPLAINT NOT UNDER SEBI PURVIEW Dear Sir/Madam, This has reference to your complaint lodged with SEBI. In this regard, you are hereby informed that the aforesaid complaint does not come within the purview of SEBI. Accordingly, it has been forwarded to the concerned authority for necessary action. For status of your complaint/any further information/follow up action in this regard, you may please contact the concerned authority at the following address: The Regional Director (Western Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, "Everest", 3rd Floor, 100, Marine Drive, Mumba – 400 002. Yours faithfully, FOR SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Sd/- (AUTHORISED SIGNATORY) 5. The order was not challenged by the petitioner under Section 15 T of the Act, and allowed it to attain finality. 6. The petitioner thereafter filed second complaint to the respondent No.1, which is being investigated. 7. The petitioner approached this Court to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 to take action on the complaint filed by the petitioner in exercise of statutory power vested under the Securities and Exchange Board of Indian Act, 1992. 8. The writ petition is opposed by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the ground of maintainability. It is contended that the writ is not maintainable; Firstly on the ground that the Art Fund does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Security and Exchange Board of India, as the scheme is operated by a trust; Secondly, that the petitioner has no right to file the second complaint, as the first complaint was rejected by the respondent No.1 which has attained finality; Thirdly, that there is no power to review with respondent No.1. 9. The petitioner could have filed an appeal under Section 15 T of the Act to challenge the order that second complaint is not competent. 10. There is force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 9. The petitioner could have filed an appeal under Section 15 T of the Act to challenge the order that second complaint is not competent. 10. There is force in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. The Security and Exchange Board exercises quasi judicial function, therefore it cannot entertain second complaint on same cause of action after rejecting it. The underlying principle of Resjudicata applies to quasi judicial proceeding. The second complaint cannot be treated to be review, as there is no power of review with the Board under the Act. This Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction cannot issue direction to deal with a complaint, which is not maintainable in Law. 11. No merit, dismissed. 12. However, this order shall not bar the petitioner to challenge the order passed by respondent No.1, if so permissible in law by filing an appeal, or taking other legal remedies to address the grievance. No costs.