The First Appellate Authority of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India disposed of an RTI appeal concerning information on recognition of a university examination as equivalent to the valuation examination under the Companies Act, 2013. The appellant alleged incomplete disclosure by the Central Public Information Officer. Upon review, the authority found that complete file notings and relevant records had already been furnished, including a conclusive noting that the university examination did not qualify for equivalence. It held that no further interference was required. Regarding additional queries on policies, lists, and statistics, the authority clarified that public authorities are not obligated to create or compile information not maintained in records, relying on Supreme Court precedent. Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of, reaffirming that the right to information extends only to existing records and not to information that is not held or required to be maintained by the authority.
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: 5th May 2026
Order under section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) in respect of RTI
Appeal Registration No. ISBBI/A/E/25/00015
IN THE MATTER OF
Nelson James Macwan
… 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 18th April 2026, challenging the communication of the Respondent, filed under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act).
2. In the RTI Application, the Appellant had sought the following information pertaining to the recognition/status of the postgraduate valuation examination conducted by Sardar Patel University as equivalent to the Valuation Examination for registration as a Registered Valuer under Section 247 of the Companies Act, 2013 and Companies (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Rules, 2017: –
“1. Sardar Patel University Decision: A certified copy of the administrative decision, including the complete file notings and correspondence, regarding the recognition/status of the examination conducted by Sardar Patel University, Vallabh Vidyanagar, as approved by the Chairperson, IBBI.
2. Statement of Reasons: In terms of Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, provide the specific reasons recorded for the aforementioned administrative decision.
3. Equivalence Policy: A certified copy of the current guidelines, criteria, or internal checklists used by IBBI to evaluate and grant equivalence/recognition to university examinations under Rule 5(1) of the Companies (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Rules, 2017.
4. List of Recognized Institutions: A certified list of all Universities/Institutes or specific Degree courses whose examinations have been recognized/exempted by IBBI as equivalent to the Valuation Examination to date.
5. Competent Authority: A certified copy of the Office Order or Notification designating the specific Committee or Division within IBBI empowered to decide upon such equivalence.
6. Statistical Summary: The total number of applications received from universities for recognition since 2017, categorized by: (a) Number Approved, (b) Number Rejected, and (c) Number Pending.
7. Record Retention: A certified copy of the Record Retention Schedule or indexing system maintained by the Examination Division for records pertaining to “Equivalence of University Curricula/ examinations.”
The CPIO has replied, inter-alia, that the relevant information as been furnished to the Appellant vide letter and email dated 16.03.2026. Aggrieved with the response, the Appellant has filed the instant Appeal stating that the CPIO has failed to provide the information sought in the prescribed manner.
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, an applicant can have access to the same under the RTI Act subject to exemptions under section 8.
4. It is pertinent to extract the relevant note #12 dated 08.02.2019, in the noting as furnished by the CPIO: –
“We only have information about candidates from SPU who sought registration with us, as the same information is not captured at the time enrollment. When compared the performance of candidates from SPU viz. a viz. there is no sign of outperformance by SPU candidates. The data size is small (specially for plant and machinery), still it presents no case for recognizing SPU course as equivalent to Valuation examination. Submitted please”
In view of the aforesaid, it is concluded that the noting is a conclusive decision on the issue and accordingly, the examination conducted by the SPU shall not be equivalent to the valuation examination for the purposes of registered valuer under the Companies Act, 2013 and relevant rules. Since the complete file notings have been furnished by the CPIO vide reply dated 16.03.2026, it does not warrant any interference.
5. With regard to query no. 3, 4, 5, 7 of the impugned RTI application, the CPIO is not obligated to maintain such information which is not part of their regular records. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of CBSE & Anr. V/s Aditya Bandopadhyay & ors. (C.A. No. 6454 of 2011) has held as follows, “If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant.”
6. This Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.
Sd/-
(Kulwant Singh)
First Appellate Authority
Copy to:
1. Appellant, Nelson James Macwan.
2. CPIO, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, 7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market, Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001
FAA not FAC
:: Omissions and Infirmities in the FAS order dated 5th May 2026 ::
While I respectfully note the findings, let me bring to reader’s attention the following serious omissions and legal infirmities in the said Order
I. COMPLETE NON-ADJUDICATION OF QUERY NO. 6
The RTI Application contained seven distinct queries numbered 1 to 7. Your Order (Para 5) deals with Queries 3, 4, 5, and 7. Para 4 deals with Query 1. Query No. 6 has not been dealt with at all as requested — neither by the CPIO in his reply, nor by your Order.
This Query 6 sought factual statistical data — which is squarely within the definition of “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and is specifically contemplated under the Supreme Court’s ruling in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay (relied upon in Para 5 of your Order) to the extent that “if a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information.”
The CPIO did not respond to this query in his reply dated 15.04.2026, and the First Appeal specifically arose from that failure. The First Appellate Authority is duty-bound under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act to adjudicate upon each query in the appeal. The complete silence on Query No. 6 in the impugned Order is a patent illegality and renders the Order non-speaking to that extent.
II. QUERY NO. 2 (STATEMENT OF REASONS) ALSO NOT ADDRESSED
Query No. 2 sought: “In terms of Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act, provide the specific reasons recorded for the aforementioned administrative decision.”
The impugned Order is also completely silent on this query. Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to publish “the reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.” This is a statutory obligation and the query directly invoked it. This query too has been left unadjudicated.
III. LEGAL INFIRMITY IN PARA 4 OF THE ORDER — A JUNIOR OFFICER’S NOTING CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN “ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION”
The Order (Para 4) concludes: “…the noting is a conclusive decision on the issue and accordingly, the examination conducted by the SPU shall not be equivalent to the valuation examination…”
With utmost respect, this conclusion is legally unsustainable for the following reasons:
(a) Note #12 dated 08.02.2019, which is extracted in Para 4 of the Order, is an internal noting of an officer of IBBI ending with the words “Submitted please.” The phrase “Submitted please” is universally understood in government practice to mean that the file is being submitted to a higher authority for approval or orders. It is not itself a decision — it is a recommendation awaiting approval.
(b) An administrative decision, especially one affecting rights of third parties (registered valuers, university, and candidates), must satisfy the following minimum requirements:
It must be taken by the competent authority (here, the Chairperson or a delegated authority); It must record application of mind;
It must contain clear approval or rejection; and
It must be communicated to the affected parties in an identifiable form.
A junior officer’s internal noting satisfies none of these requirements.
With utmost respect, it is submitted that FAA has, in Para 4 of the impugned Order, elevated a recommendation awaiting approval into a final administrative decision — which is contrary to both law and settled government practice.
The very noting extracted in Para 4 of the Order ends with the words “Submitted please” — a phrase that, in every standard of government file-working, unambiguously means that the officer is submitting the file upward for orders from a higher authority and has not himself passed any final order. To treat such a submission as a “conclusive decision” is to confuse the recommendation with the decision, and the subordinate officer with the competent authority. No administrative decision can be said to have been taken unless and until the competent authority — here, the Chairperson — has applied his mind and recorded his approval or rejection. The noting on record shows no such approval by the Chairperson.
It is respectfully pointed out that by recording this finding, the First Appellate Authority has inadvertently validated a position that IBBI itself has never officially taken decision — since IBBI’s own external communications have consistently referred to a decision taken “with the approval of the Chairperson,” not to a subordinate officer’s noting as the decision. The Order thus stands in direct contradiction both to legal principle and to IBBI’s own institutional record.
(c) The extract provided to me pursuant to the CIC order dated 03.03.2026 reveals that the file was returned by the Chairperson without recording any approval, disapproval, or reasoned order. This material fact was raised specifically in Ground No. 1(c) of the First Appeal. The impugned Order does not address this factual submission at all.
(d) Ironically, the Order itself declares what it finds the decision to be: “the examination conducted by the SPU shall not be equivalent to the valuation examination.” But if the file noting was always the conclusive decision, IBBI would not have been sending communications to SPU, Registered Valuers Associations, and myself over the years stating that a decision had been taken with the “approval of the Chairperson.” This contradiction — raised as Ground No. 2 of the First Appeal — has been entirely ignored in the Order.
IV. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE FIRST APPEAL NOT ADDRESSED — INCONSISTENCY WITH IBBI’S EARLIER COMMUNICATIONS
Ground No. 2 of the First Appeal specifically pointed out that IBBI had repeatedly communicated to Sardar Patel University, Registered Valuers Associations, and to me that a decision was taken by the competent authority with the approval of the Chairperson. The present finding that a junior officer’s noting is itself the decision completely contradicts those earlier official communications.
The First Appellate Authority was duty-bound to reconcile this contradiction. The Order does not even acknowledge this ground, let alone decide it. This is a non-speaking order to that extent and is liable to be set aside by the Hon’ble CIC.
V. GROUND NO. 3 NOT DECIDED — EXTRACT vs. COMPLETE FILE NOTINGS
Ground No. 3 of the First Appeal pointed out that the CPIO had provided only an extract of the file noting, whereas the RTI Application had requested the complete file notings.
The Order (Para 4) states: “Since the complete file notings have been furnished by the CPIO vide reply dated 16.03.2026, it does not warrant any interference.”
This finding is made without any verification of what was actually provided on 16.03.2026. The CPIO’s own reply dated 15.04.2026 uses the words “extract of the relevant file noting” — thereby himself admitting that only an extract was provided. The First Appellate Authority has contradicted the CPIO’s own words by calling it “complete file notings.” This is a factual error apparent from the record.
VI. GROUND NO. 4 NOT ADDRESSED — CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN SPU AND IBBI
Ground No. 4 of the First Appeal specifically pointed out that the RTI Application also sought correspondence between SPU and IBBI, and that the Hon’ble CIC had already observed in its order dated 03.03.2026 that such decisions affecting the public at large ought to be placed in the public domain.
The impugned Order does not deal with this ground or this category of information at all.