Case Details

The entity involved is an individual investor, Udaya Suresh Sankar, the appellant. The case is an appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005, registered as Appeal No. 6852 of 2026. The order was issued by the Appellate Authority at SEBI on May 25, 2026. The appeal concerns a refund of Rs. 100,000 related to an investment in PACL Ltd made between 2011 and 2014 (Rs. 25,000 paid yearly). The policy number is U248241xxx.

Persons Involved

  • Appellant: Udaya Suresh Sankar, an investor in PACL Ltd.
  • Respondent: The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), SEBI, Mumbai.
  • Appellate Authority: Ruchi Chojer, Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, SEBI.
  • Other Authority Mentioned: The Justice (Retd.) R. M. Lodha Committee, chaired by former Chief Justice of India Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, constituted by the Supreme Court.

Violations and Allegations

The appeal was filed on the ground that the appellant was provided incomplete, misleading or false information by the CPIO, SEBI, in response to an RTI application. The appellant alleged non-receipt of a refund from the PACL scheme despite submitting documents in 2019 as per instructions from the Justice Lotha Committee ordered by the Supreme Court.

Penalties, Settlement Terms & Rulings

There were no monetary penalties or settlements in this order. The ruling was on the procedural matter of the RTI appeal.

The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal, finding no deficiency in the CPIO's response. The Authority upheld the CPIO's position that the specific refund status information sought by the appellant is not available with SEBI.

The Authority cited a precedent from the Hon'ble Central Information Commission (Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI, July 8, 2013) which stated that a CPIO cannot invent information if it is not in their possession.

Actions, Compliance, and Future Obligations

The respondent (CPIO) had, in their original response dated April 21, 2026, informed the appellant that details of PACL Matters – including Public Notices, Press Releases, Status Reports, and FAQs – are available on the SEBI website.

The Appellate Authority reinforced this guidance, noting that the responsibility for disposal of properties and repayment to investors is entrusted to the Justice R. M. Lodha Committee, constituted pursuant to a Supreme Court order dated February 2, 2016. The appellant was advised to refer to the public domain resources on SEBI's website for information.

Final Ruling and Enforcement

The final decision was to dismiss the appeal (Appeal No. 6852 of 2026). There was no order for further action or enforcement, as the Appellate Authority found no need to interfere with the CPIO's decision. The matter is closed at SEBI's end under the RTI Act.