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

Order Date: June 12, 2026

Case Overview

The appeal was filed by Saurabh Shrivastava against the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai, regarding a response to an RTI application dated May 03, 2026. The appellant had sought specific information about the current ownership status of a PACL property named 'Pearls Royal Garden' in Bhopal (Sehore). The queries specifically requested: 1) The name of the current recorded owner(s) of the land, 2) Whether the property is listed by the Lodha Committee for sale and its current stage (valuation/auction/sold), and 3) Whether the SEBI Lodha Committee has taken possession/control of this land.

The respondent (CPIO, SEBI) had replied on May 05, 2026, stating that the information sought was not available with SEBI. The respondent also informed that details regarding PACL matters, including public notices, press releases, status reports, and FAQs, were available on the SEBI website. The appellant filed the appeal on May 17, 2026 (Reg. No. SEBIH/A/E/26/00183) on the ground that he was provided incomplete, misleading, or false information.

The Appellate Authority, after perusing the application, response, and appeal, found no deficiency in the CPIO's response. 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), which held that if information is not in possession, the CPIO cannot invent it.

The authority further clarified that the responsibility for the disposal of PACL 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. The respondent had already provided links to access Status Reports, FAQs, Press Releases, and Public Notices related to PACL Ltd., which are in the public domain.

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 refer to the publicly available information on the SEBI website and the work of the Justice Lodha Committee for any updates on the PACL matter.

Topics: RTI Appeal, PACL Ltd, Investor Protection