On 3 September 2025, the First Appellate Authority of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) issued an order under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, dismissing an appeal filed by Dhananjay Krishnanath Gaikwad. The appellant had sought copies of various proceedings and documents relating to his grievance against insolvency professional Gaurav Adukia and the ICSI Institute of Insolvency Professionals. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) had earlier provided office notings and the letter dated 10 June 2025 that recorded examination of the complaint. The Authority held that the public authority had already supplied the information available on record and reiterated that under the RTI Act, only information that exists and is held by the authority can be shared. Citing a Central Information Commission precedent, the order clarified that the CPIO is not required to create new records, provide interpretations, or answer hypothetical queries. Since the information requested by the appellant had already been furnished and no further obligation lay on the CPIO, the appeal was dismissed.
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: 3rd September, 2025
Order under section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) in respect of RTI Appeal Registration No. ISBBI/A/E/25/000107
IN THE MATTER OF
Dhananjay Krishnanath Gaikwad … 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 21st July 2025, challenging the communication of the Respondent, filed under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). As the Appeal required detailed analysis of different provisions of the RTI Act, this Appeal is being disposed of within 45 days.
2. The Appellant had requested the following information, “Referring to the letter dt. 10th June, 2025 sent to Sh. Dhananjay Gaekwad by IBBI, kindly share the following: 1. Copy of the entire papers of proceedings on record with IBBI regarding the examination of grievance raised by Dhananjay Gaekwad on dt. 6th January 2025against Sh. Gaurav Adukia (Insolvency Professional) and ICSIIIP, being examined by the Board. 2. Copy of all papers and proceedings, including office notings related to the finding of IBBI regarding no actionable material being found against Sh. Gaurav Adukia (Insolvency Professional). 3. Copy of the order under Sec.218 of IBC passed on receipt of the communication by Dhananjay Gaekwad on dt. 6th January 2025 against Sh. Gaurav Adukia(Insolvency Professional) and ICSIIIP. 4. Copy of the entire papers of proceedings on record with IBBI regarding the prima facie opinion formed by IBBI under Reg. 7(4) of IBBI (Grievance and Complaint Procedure) Regulations, 2017 on the grievance raised by Dhananjay Gaekwad on dt. 6th January 2025 against Sh. Gaurav Adukia(Insolvency Professional) and ICSIIIP. 5. Copy of the entire papers of proceedings on record with IBBI regarding additional information being sought by IBBI under Reg. 6 of IBBI (Grievance and Complaint Procedure) Regulations, 2017, on receiving the grievance raised by Dhananjay Gaekwad on dt. 6th January 2025 against Sh. Gaurav Adukia (Insolvency Professional) and ICSIIIP. ”The CPIO has, inter-alia, provided the office-notings which reflects the examination of the complaint as raised by the Appellant. Aggrieved by the CPIOreply, the Appellant has filed the present appeal while reiterating the queries in the RTI application
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.
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. I note that the Appellant has sought copy of the proceedings which records the examination of the grievance raised by Appellant against Sh. Gaurav Adukia (Insolvency Professional) and ICSI Institute of Insolvency Professionals (ICSI IIP). It is pertinent to note that the file-notings reflecting examination of the grievance have been provided earlier by the FAA (order dated 22.07.2025) and again by the CPIO in response to the present application. The letter dated 10.06.2025 has also been provided. On the material before me, the public authority has discharged its obligation vis-à-vis records that exist and are held.
5. Since the informationas “held by and under the control of public authority” enshrined under Section 2(j) of the RTI Acthas been provided to the Appellant, the CPIO is not obligated to create any new information. In K. Vasudev Vs. CPIO, M/o Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, New Delhi – 110001 (Second Appeal No. CIC/DOCAF/A/2018/137220), the Chief Information Commission has observed as follows: –
“The Commission observes that at the outset it is clarified that under the provisions of the RTI Act only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or provide clarification or furnish replies to hypothetical questions.”In view of the aforesaid observations, the CPIO reply does not warrant my interference.
6. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
(Kulwant Singh)
First Appellate Authority
Copy to:
1. Appellant, Dhananjay Krishnanath Gaikwad
2. CPIO, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, 7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market, Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001.
