IMPORTANT POINT
The Court does not interfere with the findings of a fact-finding body if the process adopted in the enquiry is fair, reasonable, and transparent.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J. - The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') to take action against Respondent No.3 (now Respondent No.2) for misconduct in his performance as an Insolvency Resolution Professional in the matter of M/s Sandhya Prakash Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Corporate Debtor). The Petitioner has also prayed for an appropriate writ/order/direction restraining Respondent No.3 (now Respondent No.2) from functioning as a Liquidator of the Corporate Debtor during the pendency of this Writ Petition.

2. It is pertinent to mention here that though initially Union of India was arrayed as Respondent No.2 and the Resolution Professional, against whom the present proceedings have been initiated, was arrayed as Respondent No.3, later on Union of India was dropped from the array of parties and the Resolution Professional has now been arrayed as Respondent No.2.

3. The facts, in brief, leading to the present Writ Petition are as under:

a. It is stated that the National Company Law Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the NCLT) at Ahmadabad initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as the CIRP) against the Corporate Debtor.

b. It is stated that right from the beginning Respondent No.2, who had been appointed as the Insolvency Resolution Professional had not been performing its duty diligently and in accordance with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the IBC).

c. It is stated that as mandated by Regulations 6(1) and (2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the CIRP Regulations), the Respondent No.2 failed to publish the public announcement in two widely circulated newspapers within three days of his appointment. It is stated that the Respondent No.2 was appointed as an Interim Resolution Professional on 14.09.2017 and the public announcement was published only on 19.09.2017 in an English online newspaper called Free Press Journal and on 20.09.2017 in a Hindi evening newspaper called Yash Bharat, which both have very less circulation in the concerned area.

d. It is stated that the Petitioner herein, who was the Operational Creditor of the Corporate Debtor, filed its claim on 27.09.2017 before the Respondent No.2. It is stated that the Respondent No.2, in contravention of the provisions of the IBC uploaded the incomplete Information Memorandum (IM) of the Corporate Debtor on its website thereby making it a public document.

e. It is stated that a complaint was filed by the Petitioner herein against Respondent No.2 with the Respondent No.1/Board on 18.03.2019 highlighting the irregularities committed by the Respondent No.2 during the CIRP process of the Corporate Debtor. It is stated that in response to the complaint filed by the Petitioner herein, Respondent No.1 replied stating that prima facie there seems to be some merit in the allegations of the Petitioner herein. However, no action was taken by the Respondent No.1 against Respondent No.2.

f. It is stated that on 05.09.2019 the Petitioner filed an addendum to the complaint already filed by him before the Board.

g. It is stated that since the CIRP process failed, the NCLT passed an order for liquidation of the Corporate Debtor. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 enquiring about the status of his complaint pending before the Board.

h. It is stated that in response to the RTI Application dated 29.04.2020 filed by the Petitioner, it was informed that the complaint was pending.

i. It is stated that the Petitioner, thereafter, filed the second RTI application on 26.09.2020 inquiring about the status of the complaint. Vide letter dated 16.10.2020, the Petitioner herein was informed that complaint of the Petitioner has been disposed of.

j. The Petitioner