Appeal No. 6973 of 2026 filed by Bharat Bhushan Sharma

Appeal No. 6973 of 2026

Page

1 of

2

BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

(Under the Right to Information Act, 2005)

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Appeal No. 6973 of 2026

Bharat Bhushan Sharma : Appellant

Vs

CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai : Respondent

ORDER

1. The appellant had filed an application (received by SEBI on April 16, 2026) under the Right to Information

Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”). The respondent, by a letter dated June 15, 2026 responded to the application filed

by the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal (Reg. No. SEBIH/A/P/26/00043; received by Office of

Appellate Authority on July 14, 2026). I have perused the application, the response of the respondent and

the appeal and find that the matter can be decided based on the material available on record.

2. Queries in the application - The appellant, in his application, has stated that he had invested an amount of

Rs. 4,76,000/- in Saradha Group and that the same has not been refunded to him yet. The appellant has also

sought information as to when the said amount would be refunded to him.

3. Reply of the Respondent – The respondent, in response to the application, informed that Hon’ble Calcutta

High Court had assigned the task of disposal of assets and refund to investors in the matter of Saradha Group

of Companies to the Hon’ble Justice (Retired) S.P. Talukdar Committee (“One Man Committee”.)

Accordingly, the information sought by the appellant is not available with SEBI.

4. Ground of appeal – On perusal of the appeal, it appears that the appellant is not satisfied with the response

of the respondent.

5. I have perused the application and the response provided thereto. The respondent, in his response, has

categorically mentioned that the requested information is not available with SEBI. In this context, I note that

the Hon’ble Central Information Commission in the matter of Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI

Appeal No. 6973 of 2026

Page

2 of

2

(Decision dated July 8, 2013), held: “… if it (SEBI) does not have any such information in its possession, the CPIO

cannot obviously invent one for the benefit of the Appellant. There is simply no information to be given.” Accordingly, I do

not find any deficiency in the response of the respondent.

6. In view of the above observations, I find that there is no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Place: Mumbai RUCHI CHOJER

Date: August 07, 2026 APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA