FAA disposes of RTI appeal related to IBBI-registered Valuer Exam for SFA

FAA disposes of RTI appeal related to IBBI-registered Valuer Exam for SFA

The First Appellate Authority of the IBBI found that the query raised did not fall within the definition of the RTI Act, 2005

The Right to Information (RTI) appeal pertaining to the (Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India) IBBI-registered Valuer Exam for Securities or Financial Assets (SFA) has been disposed of - with the finding that the doubts/queries requested by the appellant were not within the domain of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act) and as such did not fall within the definition of 'information' provided under Section 2(f) of the Act -by the First Appellate Authority(FAA) of the IBBI.

The information sought related to the Rule 4 and Annexure -IV of the Companies (Registered Value sand Valuation) Rules, 2017 in respect of Qualification and Experience for Registration as a Valuer in Securities or Financial Assets (SFA), and the eligibility regarding Members of ICAI/ICSI/ICSI (Cost) and MBA or post Graduate/ Diploma in Business Management (Specialization in Finance) with three years 'experience in the Specified Discipline.

The appellant(Mr. Pawan Kumar Singhal) submitted that he had asked straight forward queries/doubts regarding his eligibility for appearing in the Registered Valuation Examination in the RTI application. It had been alleged by the appellant that the Central Public Information Officer(CPIO), IBBI in the reply had copy pasted the Eligibility Qualification and Experience for Registration as Valuer as mentioned in Annexure-IV of the Companies (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Rules, 2017 and had not provided solutions/clarifications to the doubts of the applicant. Accordingly, the appellant stated that the CPIO, IBBI had failed to perform the statutory duty and avoided the answers to the applicant's doubts/queries.

On the other hand, the respondent (CPIO, IBBI) had submitted that the necessary available information has already been provided in the original RTI application. The public authority cannot, by way of a RTI, issue any new clarification on the doubts of the applicant. Further, only the already available information may be provided by the authority.

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. However, under the RTI request, the appellant wanted to get the answers/clarifications to his doubts/queries. In the appeal, the appellant wanted this FAA to provide answers/clarifications to his doubts/queries.

It is well established that the FAA has no power or authority under the Act to decide on the aforesaid queries raised by the appellant.

The FAA also reiterated the principles mentioned in the Guide on Right to Information Act, 2005 dated 28th November, 2013 of the DoPT, wherein it has been stated that a citizen has the right to seek such information from a public authority which is held by the public authority or which is held under its control. This right includes inspection of work, documents and records; taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; and taking certified samples of material held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. Only such information can be supplied under the Act that is available and existing and is held by the public authority or is held under the control of the public authority. The Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record of the public authority.

The Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. was also relied upon wherein it was held that a public authority is also not required to furnish information which requires drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provided advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act.

It was on the basis of the aforementioned observations that the FAA held that the doubts/queries requested by appellant was not within the domain of the Act and as such did not fall within the definition of 'information' provided under Section 2(f) of the Act.