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

Order Date: September 04, 2026

Case Overview

This appeal was filed by Arvind Soni against the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of SEBI, Mumbai. The appellant had filed an RTI application on July 21, 2026, seeking specific information related to the land holdings of PACL (Pearls Agrotech Corporation Ltd.) in Jaisalmer. The queries sought:

1. A list of PACL's land holdings in Jaisalmer and the reasons for holding them.

2. Details on the disposal procedure for these lands, including documents required for obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC).

3. The specific reasons for objections concerning Khasra No. 228/445 and 237/446 (Sagaron ki Basti, Sam, Jaisalmer), including the seller's details.

4. A copy of the CBI court order related to the aforementioned case.

The CPIO, SEBI, responded on July 28, 2026, stating that the information sought was not available with SEBI. The respondent also clarified that all communication regarding refund status is handled by the Justice (Retd.) R.M. Lodha Committee and advised the appellant to approach that Committee. The appellant filed a first appeal on August 10, 2026 (Reg. No. SEBIH/A/E/26/00303), on the grounds that he was provided incomplete, misleading, or false information.

The Appellate Authority perused the application, the response, and the appeal. It concurred with the respondent's stance, noting that if information is not in SEBI's possession, the CPIO cannot invent it. The Authority cited a precedent from the Hon'ble Central Information Commission (CIC) in the matter of Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI (Decision dated July 8, 2013).

The appellant had also requested that his application be transferred to the concerned public authority. The Authority noted that the responsibility for the disposal of PACL's properties and repayment to investors is entrusted to the Justice (Retd.) R. M. Lodha Committee. This committee was constituted pursuant to a February 2, 2016, order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Furthermore, the Authority referenced another CIC decision (M Shanmugam v CPIO, Pearls Agrotech Corporation Ltd. & Or., dated 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 appeal was dismissed. The Appellate Authority found no deficiency in the respondent's response and concluded that no further intervention was warranted. The decision of the CPIO, SEBI, was upheld.

Topics: RTI Appeal, PACL Resolution