Summary: The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), through First Appellate Authority Sanjay Manocha, disposed of RTI Appeal No. ISBBI/A/E/26/00051 filed by Anthony Henry Dmello in an order dated 10 November 2026. The appeal concerned information about the admission, verification and payment status of a claim relating to Pancard Clubs Limited, whose resolution plan was approved by NCLT Mumbai on 25 April 2024. The appellant sought confirmation of whether the claim of Ms. Evelyn Dmello under Folio No. 1001-01-206645 and Certificate No. 2928120 had been admitted, its claim identification number, admitted amount, payment particulars, reasons for non-payment, details of the authority responsible for disbursement and certified copies of relevant records. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), in its reply dated 25 September 2026, referred the appellant to the claim information uploaded by the Resolution Professional on IBBI’s website. Examining Sections 2(f), 2(j), 3, 8 and 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Appellate Authority held that the CPIO was not obligated to compile or furnish publicly available information in the particular manner requested. Relying on the Central Information Commission’s decisions in Girish Prasad Gupta and M Jameel Basha, it further observed that the RTI mechanism does not require a public information officer to create information, interpret existing records, provide clarifications or resolve disputes concerning claim admission and payment. The Authority concluded that the appellant’s concerns regarding claim admission and consequential disbursement were substantially in the nature of grievance redressal, which fell outside the CPIO’s obligations under the RTI Act. Accordingly, it found no reason to interfere with the CPIO’s reply and disposed of the appeal. The order did not independently determine whether the particular claim had been admitted or whether any payment was due.
BEFORE THE GENERAL MANAGER AND FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY
INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA
7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001
Dated: 10th November 2026
Order under section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) in respect of RTI
Appeal Registration No. ISBBI/A/E/26/00051
IN THE MATTER OF
Anthony Henry Dmello … Appellant
Vs.
Central Public Information Officer
The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India
7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001 … Respondent
1. The Appellant has filed the present Appeal dated 30th October 2026, under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). Due to administrative workload arising from unforeseen circumstances, same is disposed of within 45 days of receipt as enshrined under Section 19(6) of the RTI Act.
2. In the impugned RTI Application, the Appellant had sought the following information: – “I request the following information under the RTI Act, 2005, regarding Pancard Clubs Limited (CIN U91900MH1997PLC105363), which underwent CIRP under IBC, 2016, with the Resolution Plan approved by NCLT Mumbai on 25.04.2024.
i. Whether the claim of Ms. Evelyn Dmello, Folio No. 1001-01-206645, Certificate No. 2928120 (Delight Holiday Plan), was admitted during claim verification in this CIRP.
ii. The Claim ID assigned to this claim, if admitted.
iii. The amount of claim admitted against this Folio/Certificate No. Current payment/disbursement status of this claim.
iv. If paid, the date, amount and mode of payment. If unpaid, the specific reason for non payment.
v. Name, designation and contact details of the officer/authority presently responsible for claim wise disbursement under the approved Resolution Plan.
vi. Certified copies of any records held by IBBI showing claim status against the above Folio/Certificate No.”
In its reply dated 25.09.2026, the CPIO has, inter-alia, replied that the information pertaining to the impugned claim has been uploaded and updated by the RP from time to time at https://ibbi.gov.in/claims/claimprocess/U91900MH1997PLC105363. Aggrieved with the reply, the Appellant has filed the instant Appeal.
3. I have carefully examined 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. 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 from section 3 of the RTI Act and the said right is subject to the provisions of the Act. Section 2(j) of the RTI Act defines 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. It is pertinent to note that the CPIO has provided reference to documents hosted on its website. Since the information, as “held by or under the control of any public authority” under Section 2(j) of the RTI Act is available in the public domain, the CPIO is not obligated to maintain and furnish information in the manner as sought by the Appellant. It is relevant to refer to the decision of Hon’ble GIG in Shri Girish Prasad Gupta vs. CPIO, Indian Oil Corporation (decided on March 30, 2015), wherein it has held that: –
“…we note that the information that is placed by a public authority on its website is already available in the public domain and is, therefore, not under the control of the public authority. It can be obtained by any interested person by consulting the relevant website. If public authorities are required to provide hard copies of the information, already available on their website as part of suo motu disclosure, such suo motu disclosure will become futile, because the very purpose of such disclosure is to ensure that applicants do not have to approach public authorities to get a good deal of information already placed by them on their website.”
5. Moreover, the instant Appeal is in the nature of seeking redressal of his grievance concerning admission of his claim and the consequent release of amount. The CPIO is not obligated to resolve queries, interpret information or redress grievance under the RTI Act. The Hon’ble GIG in M Jameel Basha Vs. CPIO, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi -110001, File No: CIC/MPERS/A/2017/158527/SD (Decision dated 06.05.2019), has observed the following:
“Commission concedes with the submission of the CPIO as no information has been sought as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It may be noted that under RTI Act, CPIO is not supposed to create information or interpret/clarify/deduct information in respect of queries/clarifications. Similarly, redressal of grievance, non-compliance of rules, contesting the actions of respondent public authority and suggesting correction in government policies are outside the purview of the RTI Act.”
6. In view of the aforesaid, the reply of the CPIO does not merit any interference. The Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/-
(Sanjay Manocha)
First Appellate Authority
Copy to:
1. Appellant, Anthony Henry Dmello
2. CPIO, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, 7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market, Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001.
