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

Order Date: October 12, 2026

Case Overview

The appeal was filed by Abhishek Gautam (Appeal No. 7100 of 2026) against the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai. The appellant had originally filed an RTI application on September 02, 2026, seeking specific information regarding two PACL registration numbers (U016273xxx and U016365xxx) for an applicant named Kamlesh Kumari. The queries sought: 1) The action taken on refund applications filed in 2019 and the legal provisions for keeping them pending; 2) The legal grounds for blocking the refund despite Supreme Court orders; 3) Certified details of the land allotment (deed number, registry document, khasra number, location) for these registration numbers; 4) The responsible officer or department if no evidence of land allotment exists; 5) A timeline for rectifying data and processing a principal refund of ₹60,000.

The respondent (CPIO, SEBI) replied on September 22, 2026, stating that the information sought was not available with SEBI and directed the appellant to public resources on SEBI's website (Public Notices, Press Releases, Status Reports, FAQs) for PACL matters. The appellant filed an appeal on the ground that this response was incomplete, misleading, or false.

The Appellate Authority, after perusing the record, found no deficiency in the CPIO's response. It cited a precedent from the 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 not in their possession.

The authority noted that the responsibility for disposing of PACL properties and repaying investors lies with the Justice (Retd.) R. M. Lodha Committee, constituted pursuant to the Supreme Court's order dated February 2, 2016. SEBI had already provided links to public resources regarding the PACL matter.

Final Outcome

The appeal was dismissed. The Appellate Authority found no need to interfere with the CPIO's decision and upheld that the information was not available with SEBI. The appellant was guided to the Justice Lodha Committee and SEBI's public domain resources for further information on the PACL refund process.

Topics: RTI Appeal, PACL Refunds, SEBI Disclosure