Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.22 seconds)

Centrlal Board Of Sec.Education & Anr vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors on 9 August, 2011

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the Respondent and perusal of the records, notes that the queries raised by the Appellant are largely in the nature of seeking clarifications, opinions, explanations and hypothetical scenarios regarding the mechanism of GST collection, remittance and its linkage with income tax. In this regard, the Commission notes that as per the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, only such information can be provided which is available on record and held by or under the control of the Public Authority. The CPIO is not obliged to create information, draw inferences, or provide advice/interpretation to the applicant. The reply furnished by the CPIO appropriately reflects this legal position and is in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and various decisions of the Commission. Accordingly, the Commission finds no infirmity in the replies given by the Respondent Public Authorities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 8906 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1