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 Suneeta Devi Sachan (Appellant) against the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), SEBI, Mumbai (Respondent). The appellant had filed an RTI application on September 07, 2026, seeking detailed information concerning PACL Certificate U063744xxx issued in her name (with a noted spelling variation: SUNITA DEVI SACHAN on the certificate vs. SUNEETA DEVI SACHAN on her Aadhaar and PAN).

The eight specific queries sought the present status and reason for non-payment of her refund claim; complete details of any land allegedly allotted against the certificate (including location, area, and date); certified copies of records from PACL Ltd. based on which the allotment was determined; clarification on whether the allotment was independently verified by a SEBI Committee; the present status of the alleged land and whether possession was delivered; information on whether a refund can still be claimed if the allotment is incorrect; the procedure for correcting the name discrepancy on the certificate; and the contact details of the authority responsible for resolving the issue.

The CPIO, SEBI, responded on September 23, 2026, stating that the requested information was not available with SEBI and directed the appellant to information already in the public domain on SEBI's website, such as status reports, FAQs, press releases, and public notices related to PACL matters. The appellant filed this appeal on September 27, 2026 (Reg. No. SEBIH/A/E/26/00365), on the grounds that the provided information was incomplete, misleading, or false.

Final Outcome

The Appellate Authority, Ruchi Chojer, dismissed the appeal. The order upheld the CPIO's response, citing a precedent from the Central Information Commission (CIC) in the matter of Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI (dated July 8, 2013), which stated that a CPIO cannot invent information it does not possess. The Authority noted that the responsibility for the disposal of PACL's properties and repayment to investors lies with the Justice (Retd.) R. M. Lodha Committee, constituted pursuant to a February 2, 2016 order of the Supreme Court of India. The appellant was guided to refer to the status reports, FAQs, press releases, and public notices available on SEBI's website for information on the PACL matter.

Topics: PACL Refund, RTI Act, Investor Claims