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

Order Date: June 24, 2026

Case Overview

The appeal was filed by Umesh Kumar Chaturvedi against the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of SEBI, Mumbai. The appellant is an investor in PACL Ltd who had submitted refund claims against two specific PACL certificates (U262079xxx and U26205xxxx). On the PACL refund portal, the status of his claims showed that "land has been allotted as per PACL records" and therefore the refund could not be processed. The appellant contended that neither he nor his family had ever received any land possession allotment letter, registry sale deed, possession letter, ownership document, or any communication regarding such land from PACL Ltd.

Through his RTI application dated May 16, 2026, the appellant sought detailed information and certified copies of records related to the alleged land allotment. His specific queries included: details of the land allegedly allotted; complete details including plot number, khasra number, village, tehsil, district, and state; certified copies of the allotment letter, possession letter, registry sale deed, and any possession receipt or acknowledgment; the records based on which his refund claim was treated as land allotted; whether SEBI or the Lodha Committee possesses any documentary evidence proving actual physical possession or ownership transfer; and the procedure available for investors to challenge an incorrect "land allotted" status.

The respondent (CPIO, SEBI) replied on May 20, 2026, stating that all communication regarding refund status is handled by the Justice (Retired) R. M. Lodha Committee and advised the appellant to approach the Committee for the desired information. The respondent also informed that details of PACL matters, including public notices, press releases, status reports, and FAQs, are available on the SEBI website.

The appellant filed this appeal on May 26, 2026 (Registration No. SEBIH/A/E/26/00197) on the ground that he was provided incomplete, misleading, or false information.

The Appellate Authority perused the application, the response, and the appeal. It observed that from the reply of the respondent, it was not clear whether the requested information was available with SEBI or not. The Authority found that the queries had not been adequately addressed.

Final Outcome

The Appellate Authority remitted the application back to the respondent for de novo (fresh) consideration. The respondent was directed to send an appropriate response to the appellant in terms of the RTI Act within 15 working days from the date of receipt of the order. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Topics: RTI Appeal, PACL Refund Process, Investor Grievance