Summary: The First Appellate Authority of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, by order dated 13 October 2026 in RTI Appeal No. ISBBI/A/E/26/00043, disposed of Goutam Mohanta’s appeal without interfering with the CPIO’s response. The appellant sought fourteen categories of information concerning corporate insolvency and liquidation, including creditor claims, valuation, recoveries, haircuts, promoter participation, resolution-applicant eligibility, avoidance transactions, disciplinary action and pending cases. The Authority explained that sections 2(f) and 2(j) of the RTI Act provide access to information available in material form and held by or under the control of a public authority, subject to statutory exemptions. For queries 1, 3, 4, 9, 12, 13 and 14, the CPIO had referred the appellant to documents available on IBBI’s website. The Authority held that the CPIO was not obligated to compile publicly available information in the specific format requested and referred to the CIC’s decision in Shri Girish Prasad Gupta vs. CPIO, Indian Oil Corporation, decided on 30 March 2015. For queries 2, 5, 10 and 11, the requested information was not maintained in the desired manner; the RTI Act did not require independent analysis, classification, correlation or processing to generate a fresh dataset. For queries 6, 7 and 8, concerning cancelled licences, connected entities and examination of applicants under section 29A, the information was unavailable with the Board. Finding no material establishing otherwise, the Authority upheld the CPIO’s response.
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: 13th October 2026
Order under section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) in respect of RTI Appeal No. ISBBI/A/E/26/00043
IN THE MATTER OF
Goutam Mohanta
…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 28th August 2026, challenging the communication of the Respondent, filed under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). Since the Appeal 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. In the impugned RTI Application, the Appellant has sought the following information: –
1. Provide an electronic extract of the existing database showing corporate insolvency and liquidation cases in these categories, with corporate debtor name, commencement date, admitted claims and present status.
2. Provide year wise and category wise records showing total claims of Public Sector Banks, other financial creditors, operational creditors and Government authorities.
3. Provide existing records showing liquidation value, fair value, approved resolution amount, amount payable to financial creditors and percentage of recovery in completed cases.
4. Provide company wise records showing the amount claimed by Public Sector Banks, amount received under the resolution plan and the difference or haircut suffered.
5. Provide the list of cases where financial creditors accepted a reduction of more than 50 percent, 75 percent or 90 percent of their admitted claims.
6. Provide records showing corporate debtors connected with cancelled coal blocks, mining rights or other Government licences which entered CIRP or liquidation.
7. Provide records showing whether any former promoter, related party, subsidiary, associate, joint venture or company belonging to the same business group submitted a resolution plan or later acquired the assets.
8. Provide records of resolution applicants rejected or examined under Section 29A due to default, NPA, conviction, fraud, connected person status or relationship with the former promoter.
9. Provide existing records of applications concerning preferential. undervalued, fraudulent, extortionate or preferential. undervalued, fraudulent. extortionate or wrongful trading transactions, including amount involved, amount ordered for recovery and amount actually recovered.
10. Provide records showing matters referred to SFIO, CBI, ED, SEBI, RBI, MCA, Income Tax Department or another authority due to suspected fraud, diversion, concealment or removal of assets.
11. Provide records the showing cases pending beyond statutory period, with commencement date, present stage and recorded reason for delay.
12. Provide records of disciplinary action against insolvency professionals for undervaluation, conflict of interest, delay, failure to report fraud, improper sale or other misconduct in major corporate cases.
13. Provide copies of existing circulars, guidelines or legal records concerning the effect of an approved resolution plan upon criminal proceedings, fraud investigation and liability of former promoters and directors.
14. Provide the latest consolidated record showing admitted claims, resolution value, liquidation value, recovery, haircut, avoidance transaction amount, actual recovery, completed cases and pending cases.
Vide reply dated 24.08.2026, the CPIO has inter-alia replied that the information sought by the Appellant is hosted on the website of IBBI, and the same can be accessed by the Appellant. Aggrieved with the reply, the Appellant has filed the instant Appeal stating that the CPIO has wrongly denied the information sought.
3. I have carefully examined the application, the response of the Respondent and the instant 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. With regard to query no. 1, 3, 4, 9, 12, 13, and 14 of the RTI application, it is pertinent to note that the CPIO has provided reference to documents hosted on its website at https://ibbi.gov.in/publication, https://ibbi.gov.in/claims/corporate-personals, https://ibbi.gov.in/orders/ibbi , https://ibbi.gov.in/legal-framework/act . Since the information as “held by or under the control of any public authority” is available in the public domain, the CPIO is not obligated to compile information in a specific format as requested by the Appellant. It is relevant to refer to the decision of Hon’ble CIC 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. With regard to query nos. 2, 5, 10 and 11 of the RTI application, it is observed that the Appellant has sought information involving identification, segregation and compilation of data relating to various corporate insolvency resolution and liquidation processes on the basis of specific parameters. The CPIO has clarified that the information sought is not maintained by the Board in the manner requested by the Appellant. It is pertinent to note that the right to information under sections 2(f) and 2(j) of the RTI Act extends to information available in material form and held by or under the control of a public authority. The Act does not cast an obligation upon the CPIO to undertake an independent exercise of analysing, classifying, correlating or processing information from various records to generate a fresh dataset or compilation in the manner desired by an applicant. Accordingly, in the absence of an existing consolidated record containing the information in the form sought, the CPIO cannot be required to create such information in response to an RTI application. I, therefore, find no infirmity in the response of the CPIO to the extent that the information is not maintained in the manner sought.
6. With regard to query nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the RTI application, the Appellant has sought information relating to corporate debtors connected with cancelled coal blocks, mining rights or other Government licences, participation or acquisition by former promoters or connected entities, and examination or rejection of resolution applicants under section 29A of the Code on specified grounds. The CPIO has categorically informed the Appellant that the information sought under these queries is not available with the Board. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the RTI Act provides access to information that is held by or under the control of a public authority and does not require such authority to collect information from other sources, undertake independent inquiries or generate records that are not available with it. In the absence of any material on record indicating that the information sought under these queries is available with or under the control of the Board, I find no reason to interfere with the response furnished by the CPIO.
7. In view of the aforesaid observations, the reply of the CPIO does not merit any interference. The Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/-
(Shiv Anant Shanker)
First Appellate Authority
Copy to:
1. Appellant, Goutam Mohanta
2. CPIO, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, 7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market, Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001.
