This document is an order dated May 7, 2025, from the Executive Director and First Appellate Authority of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) regarding two RTI appeals filed by Jitendar Sood against the IBBI’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO). The appeals challenged the CPIO’s response to RTI requests concerning the treatment of transfer charges for real estate projects under CIRP and the voting rights of homebuyers whose rights were nullified by a resolution professional. In both cases, the CPIO had stated the information sought was “opinion,” which is not covered under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The appellant also contended that the CPIO’s response was beyond the statutory timeline under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority examined the applications, responses, and appeals. While acknowledging that the CPIO’s response was indeed beyond the mandated 30-day period, violating Section 7 of the RTI Act, the Authority noted that the application had been satisfactorily disposed of. Therefore, the Authority found no further intervention necessary regarding the CPIO’s response itself, but urged the CPIO to adhere to statutory timelines for future RTI requests. The appeals were accordingly disposed of based on the material available on record.
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: 7th May 2025
Order under section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) in respect of
RTI Appeal Registration No. ISBBI/A/E/25/00070 & ISBBI/A/E/25/00071
IN THE MATTER OF
Jitendar Sood
… 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 March 2025, challenging the communication of the Respondent, filed under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). Since the Appeals required detailed analysis of different provisions of the RTI Act, same is disposed of within 45 days.
2. With regard to RTI Appeal Registration No. ISBBI/A/E/25/00070, the Appellant had sought information pertaining to the differentiation in treatment of transfer charges between delivered and undelivered homes secured by a resolution professional (RP) of a real estate project undergoing CIRP. The Respondent CPIO has replied that the information sought is in the nature of “opinion”, which is beyond the scope of information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has filed the present Appeal stating that the Respondent CPIO has replied beyond the statutory timeline enshrined under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.
3. With regard to RTI Appeal Registration No. ISBBI/A/E/25/00071, the Appellant had sought information pertaining to the rights of the homebuyers whose voting rights in the CoC have been nullified by the RP. The Respondent CPIO has replied that the information sought is in the nature of “opinion”, which is beyond the scope of information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has filed the present Appeal stating that the Respondent CPIO has replied beyond the statutory timeline enshrined under Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.
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 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. While the “right to information” flows from section 3 of the RTI Act, it 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, etc. an applicant can have access to the same under the RTI Act subject to exemptions under section 8.
5. In this regard, I note that the Appellant had filed the RTI application on 17th February 2025, which was disposed of by the Respondent CPIO on 15th April 2025. The deadline to dispose of the impugned RTI Application expired on 19th March 2025. Thus, the application has been disposed beyond thirty days of its receipt by the Respondent CPIO, which violates the timeline enshrined under Section 7 of the RTI Act. Being CPIO of Public Authority like IBBI, the Respondent should be sensitive to timelines and disposal of information request. I would, therefore, encourage and urge the Respondent to consider the requirements of law while dealing with information requests under the RTI Act and dispose of RTI applications within the prescribed time. Since the Application has been disposed of by the Respondent satisfactorily, it does not warrant our further interference.
6. The Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/
(Kulwant Singh)
First Appellate Authority
Copy to:
1. Appellant, Jitendar Sood
2. CPIO, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, 7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market, Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001.
