The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) First Appellate Authority, Kulwant Singh, has disposed of an appeal filed by Ramesh Chandra regarding a Right to Information (RTI) request. The appellant sought information on actions taken by the IBBI following a previous RTI reply and various court orders concerning an insolvency professional, Vivek Raheja, and the veracity of certain MSME certificates. The IBBI’s Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) had responded that the necessary clarification had been provided to a new resolution professional for action. However, the appellant challenged this response on the grounds that it was provided one day beyond the statutory 30-day timeline mandated by Section 7(1) of the RTI Act.
The Appellate Authority noted that the CPIO’s response was delayed but deemed the information provided to be satisfactory. The authority admonished the CPIO, stating that as an officer of a public authority like the IBBI, he should be sensitive to legal timelines. While urging the CPIO to adhere to prescribed timelines in the future, the authority concluded that no further action was required, as the information had been provided and the appeal did not warrant further interference. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.
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: 4th August 2025
Order under section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) in respect of RTI
Appeal Registration No. ISBBI/A/E/25/00096
IN THE MATTER OF
Ramesh Chandra
… 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 June 2025, challenging the communication of the Respondent, filed under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). Since the Appeal merited analysis of different provisions of the RTI Act, same is disposed of within 45 days as required under Section 19(6) of the RTI Act.
2. The Appellant had sought information about the action taken by IBBI in pursuance of the DC, MSME RTI reply dated 07.01.2025, orders dated 07.08.2024 and 07.10.2024 passed by the High Courts and, order passed by IBBI suspending Vivek Raheja for two years, wherein the IBBI was obligated to verify the veracity of different MSME certificates in accordance with law. Moreover, the Appellant has sought information on any action taken by IBBI after examining the clarification received from the concerned department of the Ministry of MSME. The Respondent CPIO has, inter-alia, replied that clarification sought from the Ministry of MSME has been provided to the new resolution professional for appropriate action. However, 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. 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 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, subject to exemptions delineated under section 8 of the Act.
4. I note that the Appellant had filed the RTI application on 24th May 2025, which was disposed of by the Respondent CPIO on 24th June 2025. The deadline to dispose of the impugned RTI Application expired on 23rd June 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.
5. The Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/-
(Kulwant Singh)
First Appellate Authority
Copy to:
1. Appellant, Ramesh Chandra
2. CPIO, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, 7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market, Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001.
