Executive Director and First Appellate Authority of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) disposed of two RTI appeals filed by Ishrat Ali challenging the denial of information by the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO). In Appeal No. ISBBI/A/E/25/000119, the appellant sought details regarding the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Micro Dynamics Pvt. Ltd, including the receipt and upload dates of the admission order and constitution of the Committee of Creditors (CoC). The CPIO stated that this information was not held by the Board. The Appellate Authority noted that under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, a public authority is not required to create new information, and the requested data was not in the possession or control of the IBBI, citing precedent from M. Jameel Basha vs. CPIO.
In Appeal No. ISBBI/A/E/25/000120, the appellant sought information regarding actions taken against a former resolution professional, Ms. Anagha Anasingaraju, and her explanation to the Board. The Appellate Authority observed that communications between the resolution professional and the Board contain commercial information whose disclosure could harm competitive positions. Consequently, such information is exempt under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The letters provided by the CPIO sufficiently outlined the examination of the complaint.
Based on the material on record, the Appeals were disposed of without ordering additional disclosure, affirming that the CPIO’s responses were in accordance with the RTI Act. The decision emphasized that RTI provides access only to information held or under the control of a public authority, subject to statutory exemptions, and does not mandate creation or interpretation of information.
BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA
7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market,
Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001
Dated: 23rd October 2025
Order under section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) in respect of RTI Appeal Registration No. ISBBI/A/E/25/000119 & ISBBI/A/E/25/000120
IN THE MATTER OF
Ishrat Ali
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 23rd September 2025, challenging the communication of the Respondent, filed under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). Since the impugned Appeals deal with similar subject-matter, the same is disposed of vide common order. Since the Appeals required detailed analysis of different provisions of the RTI Act, same is disposed of within 45 days as enshrined under Section 19(6) of the RTI Act.
2. With regard to RTI Appeal No. ISBBI/A/E/25/000119, the Appellant had sought for following information pertaining to the corporate insolvency resolution process of Micro Dynamics Pvt. Ltd (CD): –
“(i) the date on which the admission order dated 23.09.2019 of the CD was received in the IBBI, New Delhi and the name/designation of the authority who received it in Ld. IBBI.
i. the date of uploading the said order dated 23.09.2019 onto the IBBI’s official website.
ii. the date of publishing the public announcement in FORM-A onto the IBBI’s official website.
iii. the date of constitution of COC as per the records of the IBBI.”
The CPIO has, inter-alia, replied that the information sought is not available with the Board. Aggrieved with the same, the Appellant has filed the present Appeal stating that the CPIO has wrongly denied the information sought despite furnishing precise dates of public announcement and constitution of CoC.
3. With regard to RTI Appeal No. ISBBI/A/E/25/000120, the Appellant had sought information on the action taken by the Board against Ms. Anagha Anasingaraju (former resolution professional of CD) for conducting CIRP of the CD backed by an alleged fraud judicial order from Sept 2019 till March 2020. Moreover, the Appellant had sought information on the explanation submitted by the accused to the Board and the action taken by the Board. The CPIO has replied that the Board has already examined the complaint and that explanations provided by the accused are exempted under Section 8(1)(e) and Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Aggrieved with the same, the Appellant has filed the present Appeal stating that the CPIO has wrongly denied the information
4. I have carefully examined the applications, the responses of the Respondent and the Appeals 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 note that the Appellant’s “right to information’ flows from section 3 of the RTI Act and the said right is subject to other 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, an applicant can have access to the same under the RTI Act subject to exemptions under section 8.
5. With regard to RTI Appeal No. ISBBI/A/E/25/000119, it is pertinent to note that the date of receipt of the order at IBBI, name of the authority receiving the order and the uploading of the same order on the website is not available with the Board. Since the information is not “held or under the control of public authority” within the meaning of information under Section 2(f) of the Act, the CPIO is not obligated to create new information. The Hon’ble GIG in M Jameel Basha Vs. CPIO, Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi (File No: CIC/MPERS/A/2017/158527/SD), has observed that, “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, noncompliance of rules, contesting the actions of respondent public authority and suggesting correction in government policies are outside the purview of the RTI Act.”
6. With regard to RTI Appeal No. ISBBI/A/E/25/000120, insofar as the explanation provided by the accused to the Board is concerned, I note that the communications between the IP and IBBI are in the context of a complaint related to a corporate insolvency resolution process of a corporate debtor and do contain details which are commercial in nature and disclosure of such details about IP or corporate debtor could harm their competitive positions. While providing any information received from the IP to a third party, the Respondent cannot be oblivious to the fact that by information disclosure, no harm is caused to the commercial transactions in corporate insolvency process or to the persons associated with the process. Accordingly, the requested information is exempted under section 8(1)(d). Moreover, the letter dated 21.06.2022 and the review order dated 23.08.2022, as provided by the CPIO to the Appellant, delineate the examination of the complaint filed by the Appellant against Ms. Anagha. In view of the foregoing, the reply of the CPIO does not merit any interference.
7. The Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/-
(Kulwant Singh)
First Appellate Authority
