SEBI Appellate Authority Dismisses RTI Appeal, Affirming Information Lags Behind Investor Rights in PACL Case

SEBI Appellate Authority Dismisses RTI Appeal, Affirming Information Lags Behind Investor Rights in PACL Case​

Regulatory Scrutiny Deepens as SEBI Appeals Body Addresses PACL Investment Queries​

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has issued an order dismissing a significant Right to Information (RTI) appeal related to PACL Ltd. investments. The case involves appellant Vikram Singh, seeking specific details concerning land allotment against his PACL Certificate No. U199140471.

The Appellate Authority’s decision reaffirms the boundary of information held by SEBI regarding property disposal and repayment matters related to the defunct entity. This development underscores the ongoing complexity surrounding investor claims in cases involving complex corporate structures.

The Scope of Information Sought by Appellant​

Mr. Singh filed an RTI application on April 10, 2026, seeking complete details about land/property allegedly allotted against his PACL Certificate. His queries were highly detailed, requesting confirmation regarding the project scheme, plot number, village, and state of the allotted land.

Furthermore, he sought certified copies of all available records and documents related to the said allotment from SEBI or Justice R.M. Lodha Committee. The appellant attached a copy of his PACL registration/receipt dated 26/02/2010 for identification tracing.

SEBI’s Response and Grounds of Appeal​

In response, SEBI informed Mr. Singh that the specific information requested regarding land allotment was not available within their possession. However, the respondent noted that details such as Public Notices, Press Releases, Status Reports, and FAQs concerning PACL matters are available on the SEBI website.

The appellant subsequently filed an appeal on May 16, 2026 (Reg. No. SEBIH/A/E/26/00182), arguing that he had been provided incomplete, misleading, or false information by the respondent authority.

Appellate Authority Rules: Citing Precedent and Jurisdiction​

The Appellate Authority perused both the original application and the respondent's reply before concluding. The decision aligns with prior legal pronouncements regarding institutional capability.

Referencing the Hon'ble Central Information Commission (CIC) in Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI (July 8, 2013), the Authority noted that if SEBI does not possess the required information, the CPIO cannot invent it for the benefit of the appellant. Accordingly, no deficiency was found in SEBI's initial response.

Redirection to Correct Public Authority​

The appeal sought a directive from the Appellate Body forcing SEBI to transfer the matter to the concerned public authority under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. The decision reviewed the structure established for investor resolution.

It confirmed that the responsibility for the disposal of properties and repayment to investors rests with the Justice (Retd.) R. M. Lodha Committee, constituted pursuant to a February 2, 2016 order by the Supreme Court of India.

The Authority noted that prior decisions, such as M Shanmugam v CPIO, Pearls Agrotech Corporation Ltd. & Or. (March 14, 2024), had accepted that the Justice Lodha Committee is not a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

Conclusion and Final Order​

Based on these observations, the Appellate Authority found no need to interfere with SEBI's original decision regarding the scope of its responsibility in this matter. The Appeal No. 6885 of 2026 was accordingly dismissed by Ruchi Chojer, Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, Securities and Exchange Board of India on June 9, 2026.