2018 (5) TMI 1073 - Board - Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Appeal received in the office of the FAA Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India under the Right to Information Act, 2005 - Held that - The information sought by the appellant under the points 1,2, 3 and 4 are neither held by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India which is a public authority, nor such information is under its control . The information solicited by the appellant under point 5 amounts to obtaining the opinion and advice of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India which does not fall under section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against RTI Application response by Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India.

Analysis:
1. Issue 1 - RTI Application Content: The appellant sought information regarding the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process for M/s. Lanco Infratech Limited. The requested details included reasons for not admitting a specific amount, admitted amount details, claim amount specifics, GDLI cover details, and post-death benefits information.

2. Issue 2 - CPIO Response: The CPIO responded that the information was not available with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, leading to the appeal by the appellant.

3. Issue 3 - Appellant's Argument: The appellant contended that since the insolvency process was initiated by the Board and an Insolvency Professional was appointed by the Board, the requested information should be provided promptly.

4. Issue 4 - Legal Precedents: The judgment referred to legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's interpretation of the term "information" under the RTI Act. It highlighted that citizens have the right to access information held and under the control of public authorities, with limitations.

5. Issue 5 - Decision: The judgment concluded that the information sought by the appellant was neither held nor under the control of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India. The details requested fell outside the scope of the RTI Act, as they involved seeking opinions or advice from the Board, which was not a requirement under the Act.

6. Conclusion: Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the legal interpretation that the requested information did not fall within the purview of the RTI Act. The judgment emphasized the limitations on accessing information under the Act and the distinction between existing records and seeking advice or opinions from public authorities.