In the matter of RTI Appeal of Bhagirathsinh Ranjitsinh Rathod

BEFORE THE GENERAL MANAGER AND FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA 7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market, Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001

Dated: 10th November 2026

Order under section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) in respect of RTI Appeal Registration No. ISBBI/A/E/26/00053 IN THE MATTER OF Bhagirathsinh Ranjitsinh Rathod …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 9th October 2026, under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act). Due to administrative workload arising from unforeseen circumstances, same is disposed of within 45 days of receipt as enshrined under Section 19(6) of the RTI Act.

2. In the impugned RTI Application, the Appellant had sought information relating to Note No. 12 dated 08.02.2019, which was referred by the FAA in its order dated 05.05.2026 to constitute a decision pertaining to non-recognition of an examination conducted by the Sardar Patel University under the Companies (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Rules,

2017. The Applicant, inter-alia, sought details of the officers who approved the Note and the relevant delegation of powers authorising such approval.

3. In its reply dated 06.10.2026, the CPIO has, inter-alia, replied that information concerning officers responsible for the aforesaid Note is exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as third-party information. Aggrieved with the reply, the Appellant has filed the instant Appeal stating that information has been wrongly denied, while the CPIO has failed to furnish a copy of the Delegation of Powers (DOP) to the Appellant.

4. I have carefully examined the application, the response of the Respondent and the Appeal 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.

Page 1 of 25. With regard to the query concerning the official delegation of powers of IBBI, it is observed that the CPIO has failed to provide the DOP despite assenting to provide the same in its reply. Being a responsible public authority, the CPIO is not expected to commit such omission. Accordingly, the CPIO is directed to furnish a copy of the DOP at the earliest. Furthermore, the CPIO is advised to exercise due diligence in discharging its obligations under the RTI Act, 2005, and to ensure that such omissions do not recur in future.

6. With regard to the query concerning disclosure of information concerning officers responsible for approving the impugned Note, it is observed that there is a distinction between “public interest” and “public curiosity”. Accordingly, the CPIO is not obligated to provide personal information on relevant officers responsible for such authorization, since no larger public interest has been made out by the Appellant, as required under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bihar Public Service Commission vs.

Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 9052 of 2012) that – “In terms of this provision, information which relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual would fall within the exempted category, unless the authority concerned is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. It is, therefore, to be understood clearly that it is a statutory exemption which must operate as a rule and only in exceptional cases would disclosure be permitted, that too, for reasons to be recorded demonstrating satisfaction to the test of larger public interest.

It will not be in consonance with the spirit of these provisions, if in a mechanical manner, directions are passed by the appropriate authority to disclose information which may be protected in terms of the above provisions.”

7. In view of the aforesaid, the reply of the CPIO does not merit any interference.

8. The Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.

Sd/- (Sanjay Manocha) First Appellate Authority

Copy to:

1. Appellant, Bhagirathsinh Ranjitsinh Rathod

1. CPIO, The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, 7th Floor, Mayur Bhawan, Shankar Market, Connaught Circus, New Delhi -110001.

Page 2 of 2