Debarment from undertaking new assignment - contravention of duties of an insolvency professional - outsourcing of resolution professional's responsibilities - acting without Committee of Creditors' approval - misleading the Adjudicating Authority and the Board - urgent interim directions under section 220(2) of the Code - inspection and referral to Disciplinary Committee under regulation 5Debarment from undertaking new assignment - urgent interim directions under section 220(2) of the Code - Confirmation of the ex-parte interim order debarring Mr. Mukesh Mohan from undertaking any new assignment pending completion of inspection. - HELD THAT: - The Disciplinary Committee considered the written submissions and oral hearing afforded to Mr. Mohan but found no new material sufficient to displace the factual matrix and concerns recorded in the ex-parte interim order. The Committee concluded that the circumstances justifying continuation of the interim directions persisted and, exercising powers under section 220(2) of the Code read with sub-regulation (4) of regulation 5 of the Inspection and Investigation Regulations, confirmed the ex-parte interim order dated 8th March, 2018 which debarred Mr. Mohan from undertaking any new assignment with immediate effect for the period specified therein. [Paras 5, 6]The directions contained in the ex-parte interim order dated 8th March, 2018 are confirmed and the debarment from undertaking new assignments is maintained.Contravention of duties of an insolvency professional - outsourcing of resolution professional's responsibilities - acting without Committee of Creditors' approval - misleading the Adjudicating Authority and the Board - Findings that Mr. Mohan contravened statutory duties, regulations and the Code of Conduct by (a) adding a CA-certificate requirement in an EoI without CoC approval, (b) acting on the approval of a single creditor rather than the CoC, (c) outsourcing certification of eligibility to a third party, and (d) making false or misleading statements to the Board and AA. - HELD THAT: - On examination of the Interim Inspection Report, minutes, correspondence and related material, the Committee recorded that the draft EoI approved by the CoC did not contain a requirement of a CA certificate but the published advertisement did; that the change was effected after a meeting with one financial creditor and forensic auditors and not by a CoC decision; and that the advertisement omitted mandated registration particulars and contained an incorrect date. These facts led the Committee to conclude that Mr. Mohan (i) acted without requisite CoC approval in contravention of the duties to lay down criteria with CoC approval, (ii) compromised his independence by acting on the inputs of a single creditor, (iii) impermissibly delegated his responsibility to third parties to certify eligibility of resolution applicants, and (iv) attempted to mislead the Board and the Adjudicating Authority by misrepresentations regarding CoC approval and market practice. The Committee identified contraventions of the Code, the Insolvency Professionals regulations and the Code of Conduct and recorded that these matters warranted urgent interim containment measures. [Paras 4, 5, 6]The Committee found that Mr. Mohan had contravened his duties as an insolvency professional in the specified respects, justifying the interim measures already imposed.Inspection and referral to Disciplinary Committee under regulation 5 - Continuation and completion of the inspection process by the Inspecting Authority to verify outstanding factual matters and conclude the Inspection Report. - HELD THAT: - The Disciplinary Committee recorded that the Inspecting Authority had been appointed and that certain factual aspects (including compliance with directions in the JEKPL matter) required conclusion in the final inspection report. The Committee directed that the inspection proceed to completion and that the Inspecting Authority conclude the outstanding factual inquiries as part of its final report, thereby preserving further adjudication and any consequential action pending the inspection's completion. [Paras 7]The Inspecting Authority is to complete the inspection and submit its final report so that remaining factual issues may be concluded.Final Conclusion: The Disciplinary Committee confirmed the ex-parte interim order dated 8th March, 2018; maintained the interim debarment of Mr. Mukesh Mohan from undertaking new assignments pending completion of inspection; recorded specific findings of contravention of the Code, regulations and Code of Conduct; and directed completion of the inspection for final adjudication.

Information held and under the control of public authorities - public authority not required to create new records - opinion or advice not constituting "information" under section 2(f)Information held and under the control of public authorities - public authority not required to create new records - The information sought in points (1) to (4) of the RTI application is not held by, nor under the control of, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India. - HELD THAT: - The FAA applied the principle that the right to information extends only to records that are held and under the control of a public authority. Relying on the Supreme Court's interpretation of section 2(f) in Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. and on the CIC's statement in Sh. Alok Shukla v. CPIO, SEBI, the FAA held that where a public authority does not possess or exercise control over the requested material, it is not obliged to furnish it. The FAA also noted that a CPIO is not required to create new records or obtain information from third parties in order to answer specific queries of an applicant; the obligation is limited to providing existing records in the custody or control of the public authority. Applying these principles to the appellant's queries concerning admission of amounts, admitted amount details, claim amount breakdowns and GDLI disbursement, the FAA found that such information is not available with the Board and not within its control. [Paras 7, 9, 10]Information sought under points (1) to (4) is not held by and not under the control of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India; no disclosure obligation arises.Opinion or advice not constituting "information" under section 2(f) - The query in point (5) of the RTI application, seeking 'what are the actual post death benefits', amounts to a request for opinion or advice which does not qualify as 'information' under the RTI Act. - HELD THAT: - The FAA relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. that a public authority is not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' and that the reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' is limited to such material when it already exists in the public authority's records. Applying that principle, the FAA concluded that the appellant's request for 'actual post death benefits' seeks the Board's opinion or advice and therefore does not fall within the scope of information mandatorily disclosable under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. [Paras 8, 10]The request in point (5) is for opinion/advice and does not constitute disclosable 'information' under section 2(f); the Board is not obliged to furnish it.Final Conclusion: The appeal is disposed of: the information sought under points (1)-(4) is not available with and not under the control of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, and the matter raised in point (5) is a request for opinion/advice which is not disclosable under the RTI Act.