Public Information Officer is not required to furnish replies to hypothetical questions: IBBI FAA

Public Information Officer is not required to furnish replies to hypothetical questions: IBBI FAA

The First Appellate Authority (FAA) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (IBBI) has disposed of the Appeal filed by the Valuer (Appellant) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and advised that the appellant can file his complaint on IBBI's website or send a hard copy to the Complaints Division of IBBI.

In this matter, the information was sought by the Appellant under section 6 of the RTI Act wherein it was stated that to obtain Registration with IBBI as valuer, Mr. Vaddepalli Murali had committed a fraud. From 2013 to 2016 he had done full time post-graduation from Aurora Engineering College, JNTU University but the Verification report proved that it was impossible to do full time job while doing full time post-graduation course. College was also 200 kms away from working place mentioned in his experience letters. Submitted Experience letters were also alleged to be fake and manipulated.

The CPIO (Central Public Information Officer) replied that the information sought was not covered under information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

In this appeal, the appellant mainly submitted that IBBI was trying to escape from this mistake and was not providing answer to the query. He had also requested for taking action against the named registered valuer (RV) who he believed had committed fraud.

The respondent, on the other hand, submitted that under the RTI Act only such information, as covered under section 2(f) may be provided.

The FAA observed that Section 2(f) of the Act defines "information" as 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.

On perusal of the Application submitted by Appellant for seeking information under RTI Act and the appeal made thereafter, it was observed that Appellant had made a complaint against the RV and had requested the CPIO for taking action against such RV on the basis of his complaint.

Referring to the Guide on Right to Information Act, 2005, it was stated that the Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record of the public authority. The Public Information Officer is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inference and/or making of assumptions; or to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions.

Relying on this legal position, the FAA noted that the appellant, through his RTI application wanted some action to be taken against a RV whom he believed has committed a fraud but this was not within the domain of the RTI Act and as such did not fall within the definition of 'information' provided at section 2(f) of the Act. However, the appellant was advised to file his complaint on IBBI's website or send a hard copy to the Complaints Division of IBBI.