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

Order Date: September 09, 2026

Case Overview

The appeal was filed by Devender Pawar against the response from the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai, to an RTI application dated July 17, 2026. The appellant had sought extensive, certified information related to the properties of PACL Ltd. in Delhi, Haryana, and Punjab. The queries included requests for lists of all immovable properties identified or attached by the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee for auction; copies of all approval records for these properties; a list of all properties already sold via e-auction, including prices and status; a year-wise statement of amounts realized from sales and disbursed to investors; a list of properties sold by PACL before the committee's formation but later included in auctions; a list of all objections and claims received on properties; copies of all Standard Operating Procedures and guidelines governing the auction process; a timeline for disposing of objections; a latest status report on unsold properties; and contact details for the nodal officer. The respondent (CPIO, SEBI) replied on July 21, 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 that committee and was informed that details like public notices and FAQs were available on SEBI's website. The appellant was dissatisfied with this response and filed the present appeal.

The Appellate Authority, after perusing the records, found no deficiency in SEBI's response. It concurred that if the information is not in SEBI's possession, the CPIO cannot be expected to invent it, citing a precedent from the Central Information Commission (CIC) in the matter of Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI (July 8, 2013). The authority noted that the responsibility for disposing of PACL properties and repaying investors is entrusted to the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee, constituted pursuant to a February 2, 2016 order of the Supreme Court of India. It was also noted that the appellant had attempted to expand the scope of his enquiry at the appeal stage, which is not permissible as per another CIC ruling in Harish Prasad Divedi vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (January 28, 2014).

Final Outcome

The appeal was dismissed. The Appellate Authority found no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent CPIO. The appellant remains directed to seek the information from the Justice R.M. Lodha Committee.

Topics: RTI Appeal, PACL Recovery, Regulatory Process