Primary sources · Order
Appeal No. 7060 of 2026 filed by HAWA SINGH
- SEBI adapter: text extracted by Firecrawl; the source PDF was not retrieved, so no original file is archived.
BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
(Under the Right to Information Act, 2005)
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 7060 of 2026
Hawa Singh
Appellant
Vs
CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai
Respondent
ORDER
The appellant had filed an application dated May 20, 2026 (received by SEBI through RTI MIS portal) under
the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”). The respondent, by a letter dated May 25, 2026, responded
to the application filed by the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal dated August 25, 2026 (Reg. No.
SEBIH/A/E/26/00325).
I note that under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, an aggrieved person may prefer the first appeal within thirty
days from the receipt of the response from the CPIO of the concerned public authority. In the instant case,
the impugned response from the respondent is dated May 25, 2026. The appellant, therefore, should have
filed the first appeal on or before expiry of thirty days from the date of receipt of the said response. As noted
above, the appellant’s first appeal was received on August 25, 2026. The first appeal has been made after the
last date permissible under the RTI Act. The appellant neither made a request for condoning the said delay
in filing the appeal nor made any submission explaining the reasons which caused the delay. Considering the
absence of a request for condoning the delay and any valid reason that prevented the appellant from filing
the appeal in time, I consider this appeal as time barred and hence, liable to be dismissed on that count.
Notwithstanding the above observation, I am considering the appeal on merit. I have perused the application
and the appeal and find that the matter can be decided based on the material available on record.
Page 1 of 3
4. Queries in the application - The appellant, in his application, sought the following information:
“I, Hawa Singh ..xxxx, am a PACL investor bearing PACL Registration No. U101134xxx dated 30.03.2011I had
deposited 6 installments (EMIs) of Rs. 4265 each totalling Rs. 25,590, however, my PACL refund claim has been processed
only for Rs. 8,529, whereas the PACL portal shows claim amount details differently. Therefore, kindly provide the following
certified information under the RTI Act, 2005 –
1. Kindly provide certified details of total amount deposited by me under PACL Registration No. U101134xxx.
2. Kindly provide certified calculation sheet showing how eligible refund amount of Rs. 8,529 was calculated.
3. Kindly provide reasons for processing refund of only Rs. 8,529 despite deposits totalling Rs. 25,590.
4. Kindly provide certified copy of policy, guidelines, formula or criteria adopted for determining PACL refund amount.
5. Kindly inform whether any balance amount is still pending/refundable in my case.
6. Kindly inform whether I am eligible to apply afresh, correction request or review request for remaining amount and provide
complete procedure.
7. Kindly provide certified copy of claim verification record and refund approval record pertaining to my PACL Registration
No. U101134377.
8. Kindly provide name and designation of officer who processed my claim.”
Reply of the Respondent – The respondent, in response to the application, informed that all
communication regarding refund status is handled by the Justice (Retd.) R.M. Lodha Committee. The
respondent also advised the appellant to approach the aforementioned Committee. Further, respondent
informed that the details of PACL Matters – Public Notices, Press Releases, Status Report, and FAQs etc.
are available on SEBI website.
Ground of appeal – The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that he was provided incomplete,
misleading or false information.
I have perused the application and the response provided thereto. On consideration, I note that from the
reply of the respondent, it is not clear whether the requested information is available with SEBI or not.
Accordingly, I find that the queries have not been adequately addressed.
Considering the above observations, I remit the application to the respondent for de novo consideration of
application and sending appropriate response to the appellant in terms of RTI Act, within 15 working days
from the date of receipt of this order.
Page 2 of 3
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Place: Mumbai
Date: September 17, 2026
RUCHI CHOJER
APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Page 3 of 3