IBBI PIO: No specific delegation of authority has been made for the purpose of taking a decision in the matter of 2nd proviso to sub-rule 1 of rule 5 of the Companies Registered Valuer and Valuation Rules, 2017 - CIC: No further action required
10 Feb, 2023Information Sought
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Whether IBBI has received a letter No. 10133 dated 02/09/2018 from Sardar Patel University (SPU). If yes, then provide inward number of the same.
2. Whether IBBI has replied to the said letter received from SPU?
3. If yes, then provide date and outward number of the reply letter sent by IBBI.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO on points no. 7 & 11 as correct information was not provided to him. The appellant vide his written submissions has also prayed that a direction may be issued to the CPIO/IBBI to publish its decision along with the reasons taken into consideration to take such decision in the matter of 2nd proviso to Rule 5(1) of Company (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Rules, 2017 on IBBI website.
The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 18.11.2021.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO on points no. 7 & 11. With regard to point no. 7, both the CPIO and the FAA had categorically stated that no specific delegation of authority has been made for the purpose of taking a decision in the matter of 2nd proviso to sub-rule 1 of rule 5 of the Companies Registered Valuer and Valuation Rules, 2017-CRVVR. The FAA in his order has further informed that the IBBI (Delegation of Powers and Functions) Order is already available with the Appellant to understand the delegation of power to IBBI’s officers and what information is not available cannot be provided. With regard to point no. 11, the FAA had clarified that the communication to Sardar Patel University (SPU) was sent on 27th April 2021 and it is beyond doubt that this is the date when the decision of IBBI qua SPU is effective. The Commission is unable to find any flaw in the reply or the FAA’s order, hence, no relief can be given.
With regard to the additional request of the appellant that the CPIO may be directed to publish its decision along with the reasons taken into consideration to take such decision in the matter of 2nd proviso to Rule 5(1) of Company (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Rules, 2017 on IBBI website, it was enquired from the CPIO whether such decisions can be uploaded on their website, to which he explained that the orders of the Appellate authority are uploaded. Moreover, the routine correspondences are generally not published or uploaded.
Decision:
As far as the RTI application is concerned, the Commission finds the reply of the CPIO just and proper. There is no further action required in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Rajansinh L Zala v. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI), File No. CIC/IBBIN/A/2021/661705, Date of Decision: 18/11/2022