Copies of CIRP forms of an Insolvency Professional submitted by him during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of an entity - CIC: Disclosure of is unwarranted and undesirable in view of the bar imposed u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act
8 Mar, 2023Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information:
- Provide copies of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) Forms 1 to 8 submitted by IP Mr. C. Ramasubramaniam, Registration No. IBBI/PA- 002/IP-N00052/2016-2017/10096, during CIRP of M/s S.L.O Industries Limited, CIN No.- U27320TN2003PLC051231.
Grounds for Second Appeal
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he had requested the CPIO to supply the copy of CIRP Forms of Mr. C. Ramasubramaniam submitted during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of M/s S.L.O. Industries Limited. He apprised the Commission that he was one of the Directors who was suspended by the respondent authority. He stated that the CPIO denied the information quoting exemption clause of Section- 8(1)(j) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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 unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. of the RTI Act, 2005 which was not applicable in the case. He further submitted that the information was related to public function and by placing on the record voluminous orders of NCLAT, financial statements etc. alleged that the Insolvency Professional was involved in committing serious financial frauds. He sought the intervention of the Commission to highlight the procedural irregularities prevalent in adjudication of his complaint before the IBBI.
The CPIO on the other hand submitted that considering the commercial confidence and fiduciary angle between the Insolvency Professional and the respondent authority, the information was barred from disclosure under Sections- 8(1)(d) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; and (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the sought for documents were denied to the appellant. The written submissions of the CPIO dated 08.02.2023 were received and taken on the record of the Commission.
Observations:
Keeping in view the facts of the case, the Commission observed that the appellant had sought copies of CIRP forms of an Insolvency Professional submitted by him during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of an entity. As per the submissions of the CPIO, the said form and the accompanying documents were held by the respondent authority in its fiduciary capacity, hence could not be provided to the appellant.
The Commission observed that the contention of the CPIO that the information sought was available to IBBI in a fiduciary capacity and included commercial information, the disclosure of which may harm their interest has merit. The Commission further assessed the institutional impact of disclosure of information in the instant case and opined that the possibility of harm/injury emanating from disclosure outweighed the public interest.
In the opinion of the Commission, the disclosure of sought for forms and documents is unwarranted and undesirable in view of the bar imposed under Section-8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. The FAA vide his order dated 07.07.2022 has furnished a reasonable explanation for denying the information and the Commission finds it appropriate. Therefore, the denial under Section-8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 was just and proper.
The Commission clarified that it cannot intervene and adjudicate the aspect of procedural irregularities of the respondent authority. It was reiterated that the Commission was a creature of the statute and its powers and functions were circumscribed by the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. It does not exercise any power outside the statute. The appellant was therefore advised to approach the appropriate judicial forum for challenging the procedural rules.
Decision:
For the reasons recorded above, the Commission upholds the findings and decision of the FAA. Therefore, no further action lies.
The instant second appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Anil Kumar Ojha v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, File no.: CIC/IBBIN/A/2022/640485, Date of Decision: 09/02/2023