Case Details

This is an order from the Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, at the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The appeal was filed by Sarbjit Kaur against the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai. The appeal number is 6873 of 2026, and the order was issued on June 02, 2026, by Appellate Authority Ruchi Chojer. The matter pertains to a refund claim in the PACL Ltd. case.

Persons Involved

  • Appellant: Sarbjit Kaur
  • Respondent: CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai
  • Appellate Authority: Ruchi Chojer, Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, SEBI
  • Other Mentioned Authority: Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, former Chief Justice of India and Chairman of the committee for PACL matter disposal.

Violations and Allegations

The document is an appellate order under the RTI Act and does not detail new violations or allegations. It concerns a request for information regarding the handling of a prior matter. The original case involves PACL Ltd., for which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had passed an order on February 2, 2016, leading to the formation of a committee under Justice (Retd.) R. M. Lodha for disposal of properties and repayment to investors.

Penalties, Settlement Terms & Rulings

The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal (Appeal No. 6873 of 2026). The ruling upheld the response of the SEBI CPIO, who had stated that the specific information requested by the appellant was not available with SEBI. The Authority found no deficiency in the CPIO's response.

Actions, Compliance, and Future Obligations

The respondent (SEBI CPIO) had, in its initial response dated April 08, 2026, informed the appellant that the requested information was not available. However, it directed the appellant to details of PACL matters—public notices, press releases, status reports, and FAQs—available on the SEBI website. The Appellate Authority reinforced this guidance in its order, noting that the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee is the body entrusted with the disposal of properties and repayment to investors in the PACL matter.

Final Ruling and Enforcement

The final decision was to dismiss the appeal, confirming there was no need to interfere with the CPIO's decision. The authority cited a precedent from the Hon'ble Central Information Commission in the matter of Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI (Decision dated July 8, 2013), which stated that if information is not in possession, the CPIO cannot invent it. No further enforcement actions or conditions were specified against the appellant.