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/2024/126916
Swadhin Chakrabarty ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO:
All India Council for Technical Education ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
(AICTE),
New Delhi
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 29.04.2024 FA : 06.06.2024 SA : 12.08.2024
CPIO : 18.06.2024 FAO : Not on record 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 29.04.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1) Who are the trustee members of Regent Education and Research Foundation (RERF) as per the records of AICTE? If it is found that the records of AICTE contradicts with the document issued by other government Authorities regarding the names of the trustee members of Regent Education and Research Foundation (RERF) then will it recommended to proper Government investigating Authority for detailed investigation?Page 1 of 4
2) What is the address of Registered office of the Regent Education and Research Foundation (RERF) as per the records of AICTE ? If it is found that the records of AICTE contradicts with the document issued by other government Authorities regarding the address of the Registered office of Regent Education and Research Foundation (RERF) then will it recommended to proper Government investigating Authority for detailed investigation?
3) Whether AICTE had taken any action to Regent Education and Research Foundation (RERF) against my letter dated 29/01/2024 [ I had written a letter dated 29/01/2024 to The Deputy Director (PGRC), AICTE against a letter F.No. 1-795/AICTE/PGRC/RSR/2023/55 dated 08.01.2024 issued by The Deputy Director( PGRC), AICTE.].
4) Whether AICTE will check the CCTV footage of semester exam from where it can be found that Swami Vivekananda Institute of Modern Studies (SVIMS) and Career & Courses a private coaching centre (CONDUCTING NON-
TECHNICAL COURSES) running inside the premises of Regent Education and Research Foundation which is against the regulation of AICTE?
5) Whether AICTE will take strong measures against Regent Education and Research Foundation (RERF), WB if it is found that there is a negligence in proper answering / false document submission to AICTE or found any guilty according to the rules and regulations of AICTE?
..., etc./ other related information
2. Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.06.2024.
3. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 18.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Point no. 3: The complaint supported by notarized affidavit dated 27.06.2023 filed by Sh. Swadhin Chakrabarty against the following Institutes:-Page 2 of 4
1. Regent Education and Research Foundation (RERF) 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.
The FAA's order, if any, is not on record of the Commission.
4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 12.08.2024.
5. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. A. K Goyal, PIO and Mr. Amit Kumar, Assistant Director, attended the hearing in-person.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a suitable reply on point no. 3 has been furnished to the appellant 18.06.2024.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has furnished clarification on point no. 3 of the RTI application and point nos. 1, 2 and 4 to 8 remained unanswered. However, the instant RTI Application does not seek information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, rather, 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:
Page 3 of 4"....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......."
8. In view of the foregoing observations, the Commission finds no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter. However, the Commission strictly warns the CPIO to be more careful in future while dealing with the RTI application and ensure answer all points of the RTI application are given in accordance with the provision of the RTI Act. With these observations, the appeal is disposed of.
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 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 (AICTE), Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070
2. Swadhin Chakrabarty Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)