Summary: The First Appellate Authority of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), Shiv Anant Shanker, disposed of RTI Appeal No. ISBBI/A/E/26/00041 filed by Manoj Kumar through an order dated 12 October 2026 under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appeal challenged the Central Public Information Officer’s response concerning three aircraft auctions identified by Auction IDs 3887, 3888 and 3889, involving Boeing B737 aircraft. The appellant had originally sought the successful bidders’ identities, whether the bidders were Indian or overseas companies, their countries of incorporation where applicable, the final accepted bid amounts, and the deadlines or extensions granted for removing the aircraft from airport premises.
The CPIO, through a communication dated 24 August 2026, stated that the requested information was not maintained by the Board and was therefore unavailable with it. During the appeal, the appellant additionally requested identification of the concerned authority, transfer of the RTI application under Section 6(3), and clarification of IBBI’s role and responsibilities in the auctions.
The Appellate Authority examined the statutory meaning of information under Section 2(f), the right to information under Sections 2(j) and 3, and the scope of appellate proceedings under Section 19. It observed that the additional questions had not formed part of the original RTI application. An appeal against a CPIO’s decision is intended to examine the response to the original information request, not to introduce fresh queries that alter its scope. The appellant was therefore given liberty to pursue the additional requests separately under the RTI Act. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.
*******
BEFORE THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER AND FIRST APPELLATE
AUTHORITY INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA
7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001
Dated: 12th October 2026
Order under section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) in respect of RTI Appeal No. ISBBI/A/E/26/00041
IN THE MATTER OF
Manoj Kumar
Vs.
Central Public Information Officer
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001
1. The Appellant has filed the present Appeal dated 26th August 2026, challenging the communication of the Respondent, filed under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). Due to unforeseen exigencies arising from administrative work, the same is disposed of beyond the timeline enshrined under Section 19(6) of the RTI Act.
2. In the impugned RTI Application ISBBI/R/E/26/00134 dated 19.07.2026, the Appellant has sought the following details: –
“Auction ID 3887 – Boeing B737- 800 (MSN 35083, T/T-JBG)
Auction ID 3888 – Boeing B737-800 (MSN 35651, T/T-JBL)
Auction ID 3889 – Boeing B737-900 (MSN 33740, T/T-JGD)
1. Kindly provide the name of the successful bidder/company for each of the above auctions.
2. With reference to Query No. 1, kindly state whether the successful bidder is an Indian company or an overseas company. If overseas, kindly provide the country of incorporation.
3. With reference to Query No. 1, kindly provide the final accepted bid amount for each of the above auctions.
4. With reference to Query No. 1, kindly provide the time period or final deadline granted to the successful bidder to remove the aircraft from the airport premises. If any extension was permitted, kindly provide the applicable timeline.”
On 24.08.2026, the CPIO has replied that the information sought is not maintained by the Board and is therefore not available with the Board. Aggrieved with the reply, the Appellant has filed the instant Appeal.
3. In terms of section 2(f) of the RTI Act ‘information’ means “any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.” It is pertinent to mention here that the Appellant’s “right to information’ flows fromsection 3 of the RTI Act and the said right is subject to the provisions of the Act.. Section 2(j) of the RTI Actdefines the “right to information” in term of information accessible under the Act which is held by or is under the control of a public authority. Thus, if the public authority holds any information in the form of data, statistics, abstracts, etc. an applicant can have access to the same under the RTI Act subject to exemptions under section 8.
4. I have carefully examined the application, the response of the Respondent and the instant Appeal. It is observed that the Appellant has raised the following queries:
“(i) If this information does not pertain to your Department/Board, kindly provide the name of the concerned Department/Board.
ii. If this RTI does not pertain to your Department/Board, kindly forward/transfer it to the concerned authority under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
iii. What is the role and responsibility of your Department/Board in this auction?”
5. It is pertinent to note that the aforesaid queries were not part of the original RTI application submitted to the CPIO. The scope of the Appeal filed against the decision of the CPIO, under Section 19 of the RTI Act, is to examine the decision or response of the CPIO in relation to the information originally sought by the Appellant. The appellate proceedings are not intended to provide an opportunity to introduce fresh queries or seek additional information that was not sought in the original application. It is observed that the information sought in the RTI application relates to the conduct and outcome of specific auctions. Since the Appellant has subsequently sought identification of another authority, transfer of the application and clarification of the Board’s role in the impugned Appeal, the same, prima facie, alters the nature or scope of the original request. Hence, the Appellant is at liberty to pursue any such additional request separately in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act.
6. The Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/-
(Shiv Anant Shanker)
First Appellate Authority
