Information Sought on Registered Valuer Regulations is "Clarification" not "Information" under RTI Act: IBBI dismisses RTI Appeal [Read Order]
The FAA concluded that the CPIO was not required to render the clarifications sought by the appellant.
![Information Sought on Registered Valuer Regulations is Clarification not Information under RTI Act: IBBI dismisses RTI Appeal [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/10/15/2096778-ibbi-rti-right-to-information-rti-appeal-taxscan.webp "Information Sought on Registered Valuer Regulations is Clarification not Information under RTI Act: IBBI dismisses RTI Appeal [Read Order]")
In a recent ruling, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board ofIndia (IBBI) dismissed an RTI appeal, holding that the information sought by the appellant was in the nature of "clarification" and not "information" as defined under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The appeal was filed by Mohit Rasiklal Mehta before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) of IBBI, challenging the reply of the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO). The appellant had sought specific details regarding the process for ceasing or susppending the registration of a Registered Valuer (RV) or Registered Valuer Entity (RVE), and a copy of any circular governing this process. He also asked for clarification on the reporting requirements for non-compliant valuers in the absence of such a circular.
The CPIO had replied that the queries were in the nature of clarification, which does not fall within the definition of 'information' under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, and directed the appellant to the Companies (Registered Valuers and Valuation) Rules, 2017, available on the IBBI website. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeal, arguing that the information was held by IBBI and was not publicly available.
Complete practical guide to Drafting Commercial Contracts, Click Here
The FAA, after examining the application, observed that the appellant's queries were in the nature of "inquisitions" or "advice," which are beyond the ambit of information accessible under the RTI Act. The FAA relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in *Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors*, which held that a public authority is not obligated to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, and that the reference to these terms in the definition of 'information' only applies to such material already existing in the records of the public authority.
The FAA concluded that the CPIO was not required to render the clarifications sought by the appellant. While noting that the information sought was not held in the form of data or statistics, the FAA, in the interest of transparency, directed the appellant to specific URLs on the IBBI website where information pertaining to registered valuers and their organizations is available.
Consequently, the FAA found no merit in the appeal and no reason to interfere with the CPIO's response. The appeal was accordingly disposed of, upholding the CPIO's original decision.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
