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

Order Date: October 12, 2026

Case Overview

The appeal was filed by Anand Sharma against the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai regarding an RTI application dated August 22, 2026. The application sought detailed information on behalf of his father, Ashok Sharma, regarding the refund processed for his PACL investment. The specific investment details were: PACL Registration Number U032324XXX, Investor Name ASHOK SHARMA, Total Amount Claimed Rs 65,600, and Eligible Refund Amount Rs 47,399. The appellant questioned why only Rs 47,399 was determined as the eligible refund amount despite investment receipts totaling Rs 65,600.

The appellant requested: 1) The detailed calculation or breakup used to determine the eligible refund amount of Rs 47,399; 2) The specific rule, guideline, circular, order or criteria under which this amount was determined; 3) The amount of investment considered eligible and details of any deductions, adjustments, exclusions or refund limits applied; and 4) Copies of relevant records or documents relied upon for determining the eligible refund amount.

SEBI's CPIO responded on September 07, 2026, stating that the information sought was not available with SEBI and that all communication regarding refund status is handled by the Justice (Retd.) R.M. Lodha Committee. The appellant was advised to approach this Committee. SEBI 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 an appeal on September 20, 2026 (Reg. No. SEBIH/A/E/26/00351) on the ground that he was provided incomplete, misleading or false information.

The Appellate Authority examined the matter and found no deficiency in SEBI's response. The authority cited the Hon'ble Central Information Commission's decision in Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI (dated July 8, 2013) which held that if SEBI does not have information in its possession, the CPIO cannot invent one for the benefit of the appellant.

The authority further noted that the responsibility of disposal of properties and repayment to investors is entrusted with the Justice (Retd.) R.M. Lodha Committee, constituted pursuant to the order dated February 2, 2016 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

Final Outcome

The appeal was dismissed, upholding SEBI's response. The Appellate Authority found no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent CPIO. The appellant remains advised to approach the Justice Lodha Committee for the requested refund calculation details.

Topics: PACL Refunds, RTI Process