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

Order Date: October 07, 2026

Case Overview

The appeal was filed by Subhash Chander (Appellant) against the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Respondent) under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellant's original RTI application, dated August 16, 2026, sought comprehensive information pertaining to his specific PACL investment (Certificate No. U038100xxx), which was showing a status of "Land has been allotted." The information requested included:

1. Complete details of the allotted land (Project Name, Plot No., Khasra/Survey No., Village, Tehsil, District, State, and allotment date).

2. Confirmation of whether the land was actually allotted, registered, transferred, or possessed in his name or was merely recorded in PACL Ltd.'s data, along with certified records.

3. The present status of his claim and date-wise details of actions taken, including the order record or file notings for not processing his refund claim further due to the land being allotted.

4. The total amount deposited by him against the certificate, including the principal amount.

5. The rules, orders, or guidelines applicable to refunds in cases where land has been allotted, and a clarification on his refund eligibility.

6. The record or document based on which his claim was marked as "Land Allotted."

The respondent (SEBI CPIO), in a letter dated August 24, 2026, replied that the information sought was not available with SEBI. The respondent stated that all communication regarding refund status is handled by the Justice (Retd.) R.M. Lodha Committee and advised the appellant to approach that Committee. Links to public domain information on PACL matters (Public Notices, Press Releases, Status Reports, FAQs) on the SEBI website were also provided.

The appellant filed this appeal on September 10, 2026 (Reg. No. SEBIH/A/E/26/00341), on the grounds that he was provided incomplete, misleading, or false information.

The Appellate Authority, after perusing the record, found no deficiency in the CPIO's response. It cited a precedent from the Hon'ble Central Information Commission (CIC) in the matter of Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI (July 8, 2013), which held that a CPIO cannot invent information if it is not in their possession.

The Authority further 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 an order dated February 2, 2016, from the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

Final Outcome

The appeal was dismissed. The Appellate Authority found no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent CPIO. The appellant was guided to approach the Justice Lodha Committee for the information he sought regarding his PACL investment and refund claim.

Topics: RTI Appeal, PACL Refunds, Regulatory Process