RTI application filed with PACL Nodal Officer and Secretary, Judge (Retd) R.M. Lotha Committee - CIC: Appellant has filed the First Appeal before the FAA, SEBI without even filing any RTI Application with SEBI; Appeal is not maintainable

O R D E R

Second Appeal No. CIC/SEBIH/A/2022/134030

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 30.03.2022 with PACL Nodal Officer and Secretary, Judge (Retd) R.M. Lotha Committee seeking the following information while stating that- ‘Through Puducherry Branch I, M. Shanmugam worked as PACL Agent (PACL Agency Code 1500100024)’:

1. “When your PACL organization was established? When it is closed. lts details and the reasons kindly give information.

2. Throughout India, many investors unaccounted have deposited money in your organization. Specifically, your organization branch has been running at Pondicherry at No2o8, 2nd Floor, 1OO feet Road, Mudaliarpet, Puducherry 605004. ln this organization, how many total numbers of investors in Pondicherry and how many totally invested? Kindly give information through RTI act.

3. Kindly furnish information about the name of PACL Higher Officers of Puducherry Branch and their complete address and mobile numbers through RTI Act.”

1.1 Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal with the FAA, PACL Nodal Officer and Secretary, Judge (Retd) R.M. Lotha Committee on 12.04.2022. The FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.

1.2 Aggrieved with the non-receipt of any response, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.07.2022.

Second Appeal No. CIC/SEBIH/A/2022/133634

2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.04.2022 with PACL Nodal Officer and Secretary, Judge (Retd) R.M. Lotha Committee seeking information through 9 points in the following manner:

1. “You have advertised PACL Advertisement through internet and Daily Thanthi on 27.03.2022. Both of them have difference, kindly furnish the information.

2. For those who have invested Rs.10,000/- and above Rs.15,000/- what is the reply for them, kindly give information about it.

3. During 2019 we have sent original certificate, Pan card, and Bank details through internet. With the said certificates without disbursing the amount, again you have asked for original certificates. Kindly furnish information about it.

4. Some persons due to old age have expired, due to Thane disaster, Tsunami and due to natural calamities those persons who have expired, their original certificates were being damaged, how could you will disburse amounts to them kindly give information about them.

5. .Please give a good information that PACL branch will be opened in Puducherry.” etc.

2.1 Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal on 24.05.2022 with the FAA, SEBI. The FAA’s order, if any, is not available on record.

2.2 Aggrieved with the non-receipt of response, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 11.07.2022.

Hearing Proceedings & Decision

3. The Appellant was present during the hearing through video conference and while Respondent No.1 remained absent during the hearing, on behalf of Respondent No.2, Santosh Kumar Mishra, Chief General Manager and CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.

4. The Appellant submitted that he is only conversant with Tamil language and submitted that he has not received any information in the matters.

5. Respondent No.2 submitted that SEBI did not receive the RTI Application(s) under reference and only the First Appeal referred to in Second Appeal No. CIC/SEBIH/A/2022/133634 addressed to SEBI was received on 24.05.2022. That, since the RTI Application with reference to which the First Appeal was filed was never received by SEBI, the First Appeal was treated as a fresh RTI Application and for want of proper RTI fees, the Appellant was informed vide their reply dated 02.06.2022 that SEBI can accept RTI Application(s) accompanied with RTI fees through prescribed mode and he was also advised that he can also file a fresh RTI Application online. However, no further communication was received from the Appellant in the matter. Further, the attention of the Commission was invited towards the following clarification mentioned in the written submissions filed by SEBI on 04.03.2024, copy of which was also endorsed to the Appellant:

“…the Justice Lodha Committee having been constituted by an order dated 02/02/2016 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is not a Public Authority within the meaning under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 and hence would not fall within the purview of the said Act.

However, contact details of the committee are available on SEBI website at - https://www.sebi.gov.in/documents/Justice%20(Retd.)%20R.%20M%20Lodha%20Committee%20in%20the%20matter%20of%20PACL%20Limited.pdf

Further, the details of PACL Matters - Public Notices, Press Releases, Status Report, and FAQs etc. are available on SEBI website at www.sebi.gov.in/PACL.html.

With regard to PACL refund, the following links may be referred :-

https://www.sebi.gov.in/documents/Public%20Notice%20%E2%80%93%20Facility... r%20investors%20of%20PACL%20Ltd.june,2023.pdf

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant has not filed the RTI Application(s) with any public authority as required under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act. Further, in Second Appeal No. CIC/SEBIH/A/2022/133634, the Appellant has filed the First Appeal before the FAA, SEBI without even filing any RTI Application with SEBI. The registry attached with this bench has also erroneously arrayed SEBI as a Respondent in the instant matter, therefore the role of SEBI is dispensed with in the matter.

7. Adverting to the foregoing findings, the instant appeal(s) are rendered as not maintainable.

Sd/-

ANANDI RAMALINGAM

Information Commissioner

Citation: M. Shanmugam v. Pearls Agrotech Corporation Ltd. and SEBI, CIC/SEBIH/A/2022/134030 + CIC/SEBIH/A/2022/133634; Date of Decision: 14.03.2024