Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Swadhin Chakrabarty vs All India Council For Technical ... on 23 July, 2025

                                   के ीय सूचना आयोग
                          Central Information Commission
                               बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                           Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                              नई िद    ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं     ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/AICTE/A/2024/647500

Swadhin Chakrabarty                                            ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                      VERSUS
                                       बनाम
CPIO: All India Council for
Technical Education, New                                 ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Delhi

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 18.06.2024              FA      : 20.07.2024             SA     : 09.10.2024

CPIO : 26.07.2024             FAO : 16.08.2024                 Hearing : 14.07.2025


Date of Decision: 22.07.2025
                                        CORAM:
                                  Hon'ble Commissioner
                                _ANANDI RAMALINGAM
                                       ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.06.2024 seeking information on the following points:

 I would like to express my gratitude from the bottom of my heart for issuing a letter of F. NO. 1-795/AICTE/PGRC/RSR/2023/597-600 dated 06-05-2024. In that letter, you had requested to appear before the SCSC in its meeting going to be held on 29/05/2024 at 10:30 AM onwards at AICTE HQ, Delhi along with all supporting documents related to my complaint. I want to express my gratitude from the bottom of my heart for issuing the following online meeting link to meet the SCSC on 30/05/2024 regarding my complaint.

https://aicteindia.webex.com/aicteindia/j.php?MTID=m5bf665942824208c36bda0 bece31bb53 I appeared online before the SCSC in the scheduled meeting which was held on 30/05/2024 and I had sent my statement through email regarding this meeting with all updated supporting documents related to my complaint. I would like to share the letter of Memo No 27(T)/CS/OM-122-SS-2023 dated 22/05/2024(received by me on 12/06/2024) (Supportive Document 1) issued by Director of Technical Education, West Bengal on response to my second appeal dated 30/09/2023 (Supportive Document 2). In that letter, I gave the following employment-related information about Mr Surya Pratap Singha to the Director of Technical Education:

a) Name of the Company: M/S Chennai Radha Engineering Works(P) Ltd

b) Address of the Company: No. 9/d-12, Sipcot it park, Siruseri, Tamilnadu, India. Pin-- 603103

c) Website: https://crewpl.com/

d) Type of Employment: Regular

e) Annual Income : Rs 1,75,000/-(approx.)......

1. Whether AICTE checked the eligibility and appointment process (both educational and experience as full-time faculty) of the Current Principal (Prof (Dr.) Samik Chakraborty )of RERF? Whether the affiliation of RERF will be canceled If AICTE finds fault in the appointment process, academic eligibility as full-time faculty, and educational qualification in the engineering field? If Prof (Dr.) Samik Chakraborty given his resignation as principal of RERF before the meeting then who had represented RERF as Principal?

2. Whether AICTE checked the eligibility and appointment process (both educational and experience as full-time faculty) of the previous to the Current Principal (ie Dr Rajorshi Bandyopadhyay) of RERF? Whether the affiliation of Page 2 of 6 RERF will be cancelled If AICTE finds fault in the appointment process, date of joining. academic eligibility as full-time faculty, and educational qualification in the engineering field.

3. Whether AICTE checked the eligibility and appointment process (both educational and experience as full-time faculty) of the Principal of SVIMS (ie Dr. Chandan Das)? Whether the affiliation of SVIMS be canceled If AICTE finds fault in the appointment process, eligibility as full-time faculty, and educational qualification? If it is found that SVIMS is running in RERF building for the last several years violating the rules and regulations of AICTE as well as MAKAUT then the affiliation of SVIMS will be canceled.

4. Whether AICTE checked the eligibility and appointment process (both educational and experience as full-time faculty) of the Principal of RIST (ie Mr Milan Mazumder)? Whether the affiliation of RIST will be canceled If AICTE finds fault in the appointment process, eligibility as full-time faculty, and educational qualification (Pursuing M.Tech Degree from the same college from where he was then employed as a technical assistant)

5. Whether AICTE will take stern action against Mr Rana Pratap Singh, the GM Administration (RERF) if it is found that he is not only involved in the Ragging of the students but also actively harassing the faculty members [by any means like holding salary in the covid 19 situation, indulging to work for his own organization (Career & Courses) while appointed to work for RERF ]to show his money power as well as muscle power. ..., etc./ other related information.

2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.07.2024.

3. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 26.07.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-

"The reply of point no 1 to 8 is as under:

The complaint supported by notarized affidavit dated 27.06.2023 filed by Sh. Swadhin Chakrabarty against the following Institutes

1. Regent Education and Research Foundation (RERE) Group of Institutions 2 Swami Vivekananda Institute of Modern Studies (SVIMS)

3. Regent Institute of Science & Technology (RIST), Kolkata The above complaint matter was placed before the Standing Complaint Scrutiny Committee (SCSC) in its meeting held on 29th and 30th May, 2024 The committee after hearing both the parties and scrutiny/examining the documents made some recommendations The copy of SCSC recommendations dated 30.05.2024 duly approved by competent authority is enclosed herewith which is self-explanatory to the information seeked by applicant Sh Suprovat Basu, Deputy Registrar attended the above SSC meeting on behalf of RERI Institute in the above complaint matter"

4. The FAA vide order dated 16.08.2024upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

5. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.10.2024.

6. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. A. K Goyal, PIO, attended the hearing in-person.

7. The respondent, while defending their case, reaffirmed their earlier response dated 26.07.2024 and submitted that all relevant available information against the clarification regarding eligibility and appointment process of the current Principal and related issues had been furnished to the appellant. A relevant extract of the respondent, PGR Cell, written submission dated 02.07.2025 is reproduced below:-

"In this context, it is further mentioned that during the hearing of complaint filed by the Appellant before Standing Complaint Scrutiny Committee (SCSC) held on 29-30.05.2024 both the parities i.e. the Complainant/Appellant and Institute representatives were presented their case before the Committee. The Committee after examining/scrutiny of all the related documents and upon hearing both the parties made detailed observations/recommendations which was approved by the Page 4 of 6 Competent Authority of AICTE. The recommendation of SCSC are enclosed at Annexure-III.

In view of the above, CIC authority is requested to kindly consider the above information/facts in the above matter and disposed of the matter please."

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought clarification and opinion, which do not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [Civil Appeal No.6454 of 2011] date of judgment 09.08.2011. The following was thus held:

"....A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require 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......."

9. However, in the true spirit of the RTI Act, the CPIO has provided clarification to the appellant Act vide letter dated 26.07.2024. Having observed as above, no relief or action is warranted in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 22.07.2025 Page 5 of 6 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ.पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:

1. The CPIO, All India Council for Technical Education, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070

2. Swadhin Chakrabarty Page 6 of 6 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)