Central Information Commission
Robin Mittal vs Insolvency And Bankruptcy Board Of ... on 3 June, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/IBBIN/A/2023/633282
Shri Robin Mittal ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
CPIO, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
New Delhi
Date of Hearing : 31.05.2024
Date of Decision : 31.05.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 25.04.2023
PIO replied on : 31.05.2023
First Appeal filed on : 03.06.2023
First Appellate Order on : 30.06.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 11.07.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.04.2023 seeking information on following 10 points:-
"i) Kindly intimate inspection was conducted as per INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA (INSPECTION AND INVESTIGATION) REGULATIONS, 20171 or INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA (GRIEVANCE REGULATIONS, 20171 AND COMPLAINT HANDLING PROCEDURE)
ii) Inspection was conducted by IBBI as per section 3(1) i.e The Board shall conduct inspection of such number of service providers every year, as may be decided by the Board from time to time or section 7(1) i.e The Board may conduct investigation of a service provider under section 218.
In case investigation was conducted on complaints, please provide nature, content of each complainant, unique registration no, based on which inspection was conducted.
iv) Copy of Inspection notice as per section 4(1) i.e Inspection or 8(1) i.e Investigation.
v) Copy of Show Notice issued to Mr. Vivek Raheja as per section 12. i.e "Show Cause Notice".
Etc."
The CPIO and GM, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 31.05.2023 replied as under:-
Page 1 of 4"1-2. In exercise of its powers under section 218 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with regulation 3(3) of the IBBI (Inspection and Investigation) Regulation, 2017, inspection of Mr. Vivek Raheja, Insolvency Professional was ordered in the matter of Century Communication Limited and on receipt of Complaints/Grievances in the matter of Trading Engineers International Limited, scope of Inspection was extended to cover CIRP of Trading Engineers International Limited as well.
3. Recently on receipt of grievances in the matter of Trading Engineers International Limited another investigation has been ordered and the same is underway.
4. The copy of the Inspection Notice is attached.
5-6. The Inspection Report submitted by the Inspecting authority was dealt as per IBBI (Inspection and Investigation) Regulations, 2017 and Show cause notice was issued to Mr. Vivek Raheja, Resolution Professional. The same was disposed of vide DC order dated 17th February 2023 which is available at https://ibbi.gov.in/en/orders/ibbi. The disclosure of reply of Mr. Vivek Raheja is exempted in terms of section 8(i)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 7 Information not available 8 and 9 Investigation is still under progress
10. The disclosure of inspection report is exempted in terms of Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.06.2023. The FAA vide order dated 30.06.2023 stated as under:-
"10. It is trite to say that IBBI being the regulatory authority for Insolvency Professionals, receives the complaints in respect of processes under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Many of the information contained in those complaints are received under this fiduciary relationship. Therefore, I am convinced that there is fiduciary angle to the relationship between the complainant and IBBI, and the disclosure of requested information is exempted under section 8(1) (e) also.
11. The Appellant has also failed to establish how a larger public interest is involved warranting disclosure of requested information nor has he disclosed as to how his interest is affected by non-disclosure of requested information.
12. With regard to query 4, 1 note that the Appellant asked for the copy of inspection notice and same was provided. The Appellant, however, without asking for any other information or claiming any shortage of information disclosures, has sought to make allegations on IBBI officers. The same is devoid of any worth for consideration under the RTI Act.
13. With regard to queries 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10, the Appellant has inter-alia asked for the (i) copy of SCN, (ii) copy of documents provided by IP to IBBI, (iii) Copy of investigation report, (iv) inspection report and other documents on which DC concluded and passed the order. I note that the communications between the IP and IBBI are in the context of a corporate insolvency resolution process of a corporate debtor and do contain details which are commercial in nature and disclosure of such details about IP or corporate debtor could harm their competitive positions. While providing any information received from the IP to a third party, the Respondent cannot be oblivious to the fact that by information Page 2 of 4 disclosure, no harm is caused to the commercial transactions in corporate insolvency process or to the persons associated with the process. Accordingly, I hold that the requested information is exempted under section 8(1)(d). Apart from the legal obligation of IP under the governing regulations to ensure confidentiality of the information sought relates to the insolvency resolution process and many of the information contained are received under fiduciary relationship. Therefore, there is fiduciary angle to the relationship between the IP and IBBI also, and the disclosure of requested information is exempted under section 8(1)(c) also. The Appellant has also failed to establish how a larger public interest is involved warranting disclosure of requested information nor has he disclosed as to how his interest is affected by non-disclosure of requested information. Also, the Appellant has no right to ask for such documents under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Inspection and Investigation) Regulations, 2017 (Inspection Regulations). These documents are used and relied upon in respect of a disciplinary proceedings against a registered insolvency professional and law does not cast obligations to share these documents with third parties.
14. With regard to query 7, the Appellant has asked for a copy of MSME certificate. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that the Hon'ble CIC in Mr. Subrata Guba Ray Vs. CPIO, Appeal No. CIC/SB/A/2016/001025/CBECE-BJ (Order dated 03.03.2017), has inter-alia observed that: ".... under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, only such information as is available and existing and beld 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 furnish replies to bypothetical questions." As Respondent has stated that the said information is not available, I find that the Respondent cannot provide the information which is not held by it.
15. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the response of the Respondent. Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed of."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the CPIO, IBBI, New Delhi vide letter dated 30.05.2024 wherein it was stated that all information was provided to the Appellant and only such information which is exempted as per Section 8 of the RTI Act was not provided as it bears wider consequences.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Represented by Shri Anil Tyagi Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CPIO and General Manager The Appellant's representative reiterated the RTI application and stated that satisfactory information was not provided by the Respondents till date. He specifically argued that copies of documents such as the inspection report, disciplinary committee notings and any other document on the basis of which DS passed order u/s 13 was not provided. .
Shri Rajesh Kumar reiterated his written submission dated 30.05.2024 and stated that vide order dated 17.02.2023, the Disciplinary Committee pronounced its decision in the show cause proceedings against Shri Vivek Raheja, Insolvency Professional, a copy of which was available on their Page 3 of 4 website and was also provided to the Appellant. He added that the remaining information such as inspection report, disciplinary committee notings, etc were not provided as they were personal information of a disciplinary proceedings against a third party and were held and available with them in a fiduciary capacity.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Shri Rajesh Kumar, CPIO and General Manager, IBBI is however directed to forward a copy of his written submission to the Appellant within 1 week from the date of receipt of this order for his perusal and necessary action. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)