Authority: Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)

Order Date: October 07, 2026

Case Overview

The appellants, Mukesh Arora and Sonia Narang, filed an appeal (No. 7077 of 2026) before the SEBI Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005. This appeal was against the response provided by the SEBI CPIO (Central Public Information Officer) to their RTI application, which was received by SEBI on August 13, 2026. The RTI application sought detailed information and certified copies of documents pertaining to a specific complaint they had filed with SEBI on July 17, 2025. This complaint concerned the inclusion or continuation of a property identified as MR No. 7379-16 in the auction and recovery process related to PACL Ltd.

The appellants sought information across six broad categories: the complaint's registration details and current status; action taken reports and the name of the officer handling it; whether the complaint was placed before the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee; the current auction status of the property; details of other PACL properties removed after similar complaints; and a request for file inspection or transfer of the application if the information was held by another authority.

The SEBI CPIO, in a response dated August 24, 2026, informed the appellants that the information sought was not available with SEBI. The CPIO clarified that all communication regarding refund status is handled by the Justice (Retd.) R.M. Lodha Committee and advised the appellants to approach that committee directly.

The Appellate Authority, after perusing the application, the CPIO's response, and the appeal, found that the matter could be decided on the available record. The authority concurred with the CPIO's response for queries 4 and 5 (related to the PACL property's status and details of other similar cases), noting that the responsibility for property disposal and investor repayment lies solely with the Justice Lodha Committee, constituted pursuant to a Supreme Court order dated February 2, 2016. The authority cited a precedent from the Central Information Commission (Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI) to affirm that the CPIO cannot provide information not in its possession.

However, for queries 1, 2, and 3 (which pertained specifically to the complaint's registration, status, and action taken within SEBI), the authority found the CPIO's response to be inadequate and warranted reconsideration.

Final Outcome

The appeal was disposed of. The Appellate Authority upheld the CPIO's response regarding queries on the PACL recovery process (queries 4 and 5), confirming this information is not held by SEBI. For queries 1, 2, and 3 concerning the complaint's handling within SEBI, the authority remanded the matter back to the respondent (CPIO, SEBI) for de novo (fresh) consideration. The CPIO was directed to provide an appropriate response to the appellant in terms of the RTI Act within 15 working days from the receipt of this order.

Topics: RTI Appeal, PACL Recovery, SEBI Compliance