Appeal No. 6972 of 2026 filed by Sunil Kumari

Appeal No. 6972 of 2026

Page

1 of

BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

(Under the Right to Information Act, 2005)

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Appeal No. 6972 of 2026

Sunil Kumari : Appellant

CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai : Respondent

ORDER

1. The appellant had filed an application dated May 29, 2026 (received by SEBI on June 01, 2026) under the

Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”). The respondent, by a letter dated June 12, 2026 responded to

the application filed by the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal dated July 06, 2026 (Reg. No.

SEBIH/A/P/26/00042; 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 her application dated May 29, 2026 sought the following

information regarding her PACL refund application :

“1. Complete details of calculation of my eligible refund amount

2.Reason for releasing only Rs. 1,099

3.Status of remaining refund amount

4. Whether any deficiency/document issue exists in my application.

5. Expected timeline for payment of remaining amount.”

3. Reply of the Respondent – The respondent, in response to the application, informed that the all

communication regarding refund status is handled by the Justice (Retd.) R. M. Lodha Committee and advised

the appellant to approach the aforementioned Committee. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the respondent

informed that the details of PACL Matters- Public Notices, Press Releases, Status Report, and FAQs etc. are

available on SEBI website.

Appeal No. 6972 of 2026

Page

2 of

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 appellant, in her appeal, has contended

that her application was addressed to Nodal Officer, Justice (Retd.) R. M. Lodha Committee and therefore,

advising her to approach the said Committee for information was not a valid response. On consideration, I

note that the responsibility of disposal of the properties and repayment to investors, is entrusted with the

Justice (Retd.) R. M. Lodha Committee (under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.M. Lodha, former

Chief Justice of India), which has been constituted, pursuant to the order dated February 2, 2016 of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Further, I note that Hon’ble CIC in its decision in M Shanmugam v CPIO,

Pearls Agrotech Corporation Ltd. & Or. (Date of decision: 14.03.2024) had accepted the contention of the

respondent that the Justice Lodha Committee is not public authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act. In

light of the aforesaid, I find that no further intervention of this forum is warranted.

6. The appeal is dismissed.

Place: Mumbai RUCHI CHOJER

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA