Appeal No. 3910 of 2020 filed by Gurdip Singh

BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
(Under the Right to Information Act, 2005)
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Appeal No. 3910 of 2020

Gurdip Singh : Appellant

Vs.

CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai : Respondent

ORDER

1. The appellant had filed an application dated August 30, 2020 (received by the respondent through RTI MIS Portal), under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”). The respondent, by a letter dated September 04, 2020, responded to the application filed by the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal dated September 07, 2020, against the said response dated September 04, 2020. I have carefully considered the application, the response 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 dated August 30, 2020, inter alia submitted that he had sent various emails for refund of his deposit made with PACL Limited and has also provided details of the deposit. Further, the appellant sought information with respect to the refund of his deposit.

3. The respondent, in response to the queries, observed that the information sought by the appellant, is not available with SEBI. However, the appellant was informed that Justice (Retd.) R.M. Lodha Committee had sought online refund application vide press release dated February 08, 2019, from the investors of PACL Ltd. It was also informed that vide public notice dated July 21, 2020, the Committee has provided the investors a facility to view the status of/ deficiency in their claim applications and make good those deficiencies for the investor/applicants with claims between Rs. 5000/- and Rs. 7000/-. The appellant was also advised to refer the public notice dated July 31, 2020 for status of refund. The respondent also provided the links for accessing the above mentioned public notices, on the SEBI website. In addition to the same, the respondent had provided the link for accessing the details of Committee, for further communication.

4. Grounds of Appeal – On perusal of the appeal, it appears that the appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reply of the respondent. Further, the appellant has stated that his investment is for an amount exceeding Rs. 50 Lakhs and he has sought information as to when the amount will be refunded to him.

5. I have perused the query and I find no reason to disbelieve the said observation of the respondent that the information sought is not available with SEBI. It is understood that the responsibility of disposal of the properties and repayment to investors, is entrusted with the PACL 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. I also note that the refund process is being handled by the said Committee. Further, I understand that the query regarding time of refund in the matter, is in the nature of eliciting a clarification or opinion from the respondent regarding a future event, which cannot be construed as an information available on record. Upon a consideration of the aforesaid, I find no deficiency in the respondent’s response to the appellant’s application.

6. Further, it is understood that the details of PACL – Status Report, FAQs, Press Releases and Public Notices etc. are available on SEBI website (www.sebi.gov.in) at : https://www.sebi.gov.in/PACL.html and details of property of PACL Ltd. is available at https://www.auctionpacl.com and www.sebipaclproperties.com. Further, there is a dedicated website with regard to PACL refund –https://sebicommitteepaclrefund.com. I find that the respondent has adequately guided the appellant to access the contact details of the Committee and the details with respect to the process of refund in the matter of PACL Ltd. In addition to the same, the email address of the Committee is mentioned below-E-mail address: nodalofficerpacl@sebi.gov.in.

7. 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 
Date: October 06, 2020 

AMARJEET SINGH
APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA