Case Details

This document is an order from the Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, at the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). It pertains to Appeal No. 6853 of 2026, filed by appellant Narayan Purohit against the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai. The order was issued in Mumbai by Ruchi Chojer, the Appellate Authority, on May 25, 2026.

The appeal concerned an RTI application dated April 07, 2026, in which the appellant sought a specific document: the copy of the Draft Red Herring Prospectus (DRHP) filed by Shlokka Dyes Ltd (CIN U24299GJ2021PLC124004) on January 16, 2025, with the SME Exchange of BSE Ltd, which was later withdrawn. The reason for withdrawal provided was "non receipt of NOC from lender Bank - State Bank Of India, Ahmedabad."

Persons Involved

The key entities involved are:

  • Appellant: Narayan Purohit
  • Respondent: CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai
  • Appellate Authority: Ruchi Chojer
  • Company Mentioned: Shlokka Dyes Ltd
  • Other Entities: BSE Ltd, State Bank of India, Ahmedabad

Violations and Allegations

The appeal was filed on the ground that the appellant was provided "incomplete, misleading or false information" by the SEBI CPIO in their initial response dated April 28, 2026. There are no allegations of financial or market violations by Shlokka Dyes Ltd within this order; the matter is purely procedural concerning the right to information.

Penalties, Settlement Terms & Rulings

The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. The ruling was that the requested information—the DRHP filed by Shlokka Dyes Ltd—is available in the public domain on the BSE website. Citing legal precedent, including the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Registrar of Companies & ors. Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & anr. and the Hon'ble Central Information Commission in Shri K Lall vs. Shri M K Bagri (CIC/AT/A/2007/00112), the authority affirmed that information available publicly cannot be said to be held by the public authority and there is no obligation to provide it under the RTI Act. The authority found no deficiency in the CPIO's original response.

Final Ruling and Enforcement

The final decision was to not interfere with the respondent's (CPIO's) decision. Appeal No. 6853 of 2026 was dismissed. No further action or enforcement is required from the involved parties as per this order.