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

Order Date: August 25, 2026

Case Overview

Advocate Abhishek Mathur filed an RTI application dated July 29, 2026, seeking detailed information about pending investor refunds for PACL Ltd. The application requested: (1) the total number of PACL Ltd. investors who had not received refunds as of the response date, along with the total claim amount for such pending investors; (2) record-based reasons for the delay in refunding these investors; (3) details of any current action plan for disbursing refunds to remaining investors; (4) certified copies of relevant records, file notings, office notes, orders, or other documents; (5) information about any proposed next phase of the refund process including expected timelines; and (6) details of steps taken by competent authorities for early settlement of pending claims.

SEBI's CPIO responded on August 03, 2026, stating that the requested information 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 and directed to SEBI's website for publicly available information on PACL matters including public notices, press releases, status reports, and FAQs.

The appellant filed an appeal dated August 03, 2026 (Reg. No. SEBIH/A/E/26/00290) expressing dissatisfaction with SEBI's response and requesting that the application be transferred to the concerned public authority.

The Appellate Authority examined the case and noted that the responsibility for disposal of properties and repayment to investors is entrusted to the Justice (Retd.) R.M. Lodha Committee, constituted pursuant to the Supreme Court's order dated February 2, 2016. The Authority cited the Hon'ble Central Information Commission's decision in Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI (July 8, 2013) which held that if SEBI does not possess requested information, the CPIO cannot invent it. The Authority also referenced the CIC's decision in M Shanmugam v CPIO, Pearls Agrotech Corporation Ltd. & Or. (March 14, 2024) which accepted that the Justice Lodha Committee is not a public authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

Final Outcome

The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, finding no deficiency in SEBI's response and determining that no further intervention was warranted. The appellant's request to transfer the application to another authority was effectively denied as the Justice Lodha Committee was determined not to be a public authority under the RTI Act.

Topics: RTI Appeal, Investor Refunds, Regulatory Compliance