The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) First Appellate Authority, on July 8, 2025, dismissed an appeal filed by V. S. Balasubramanian, who alleged a violation of IBC laws by Akums Drugs & Pharma Ltd. The appellant claimed Akums Drugs had announced a takeover of Ankur Drugs & Pharma Ltd. in national newspapers while Ankur Drugs’ IBC proceedings were still pending before the National Company Law Board, Mumbai. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the IBBI had previously responded that the appellant was “not seeking any information” but merely “submitting his comments.” The First Appellate Authority upheld the CPIO’s stance, citing Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which defines ‘information’ as material “held” by a public authority. Citing judicial precedents from the Central Information Commission, including M Jameel Basha Vs. CPIO and K. Bansal v. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL, the authority reiterated that the RTI Act is not a mechanism for grievance redressal, interpreting rules, or creating information, but rather for accessing existing records. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that the IBBI is not mandated to act as a grievance forum under the RTI Act.
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: 8th July 2025
Order under section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) in respect of
RTI Appeal Registration No. ISBBI/A/E/25/00087
IN THE MATTER OF
V S Balasubramanian … 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 10th June 2025, challenging the communication of the Respondent, filed under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).
2. The Appellant had requested the following information, “Ankur Drugs & Pharma Ltd (BSE CODE531638) a company under ROC Maharashtra is under IBC and the IBC proceedings are pending before Hon’ble National company Law bored Mumbai since2012. When IBC proceedings are not settled, Akums drugs PHARMA, (bse code544222) under MCA Delhi has given in National Newspapers during April2022 announced in major Newspapers informing taken over Ankur Drugs& Pharma Ltd. This procedure announced by Akum Drugs pharma ltd is a Violation under IBC Laws”. The CPIO Respondent has replied as follows, “the applicant is not seeking any information in the RTI and is merely submitting his comments with respect to a corporate debtor undergoing proceedings under IBC.” Aggrieved by the same, the Appellant has filed the present Appeal stating that, “The reply furnished by the authority didn’t reject the violation done by the errant company viz Akums Drugs & Pharma Ltd. ISBBI is rather casual while disputing the violation of IBC .when the matter is before Bombay High Court, it is unfair that a 3rd party company gives announcements in 5national dailies that Merger of Ankur Drugs with them. Let the MCA declare the Balance sheet of Akums contain the assets of Ankur This is the quality of ISBBI”.
3. 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, an applicant can have access to the same under the RTI Act subject to exemptions under section 8.
4. In this regard, I note that the Appellant has alleged that a company titled “Akums Drugs Pharma Ltd” has violated the Code by publishing their takeover of a company named “Ankur Drugs & Pharma Ltd.” in major newspapers of the country, when the matter is pending before the Bombay High Court. It is pertinent to note that the purpose of the RTI Act is to provide such information as “held” by the public authority. The grievances of the Appellant cannot be dealt under RTI Act. The Hon’ble CIC 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.” Since the information sought by the Appellant is in the nature of seeking redressal of their grievance, same is beyond the scope of the RTI Act. The CPIO is not mandated to venture into the merits of a case or serve as a grievance redressal forum. In the matter of K. Bansal v. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL Decision No. CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 (Decision dated 29.01.2013), the CIC has observed as follows: “The RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes and there are other appropriate forum(s) for resolving such matters.”
5. In view of the foregoing, I am satisfied with the reply of the Respondent and does not warrant my interference.
6. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
(Kulwant Singh)
First Appellate Authority
Copy to:
1. Appellant, V S Balasubramanian
2. CPIO, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, 7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market, Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001.
