Benefits which would accrue an employee who did two M. Coms from different Universities - PIO provided a copy of UGC Regulations - CIC: A public authority is not required to draw inferences, make assumptions or provide opinion to an applicant
13 Nov, 2013Heard today, dated 25.10.2013 through video conferencing. Appellant is represented by Dr S.Garg and heard over phone as the video conferencing was malfunctioning. The Public Authority is represented by Shri Umakant Baluni, SO CPP-II UGC, New Delhi/PIO along with Shri Satya Prakash.
FACTS
Vide RTI dt 5.6.13, appellant had sought information relating to benefits which would accrue to her father who has done two M.Coms from different Universities.
2 PIO vide letter dt 21.6.13, provided a copy of UGC (Minimum Standards of Instructions for the grant of Master’s Degree through formal Education) Regulations 2003.
3. An appeal was filed on 25.6.13.
4. Submissions made by the appellant and public authority were heard. PIO submitted that AA vide order dt 12.9.13, had provided a response and disposed of the appeal. A copy is submitted to the Commission and taken on record. Appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the response provided. PIO submitted that available Regulations have already been provided and they have no additional information available.
DECISION
5. The Commission finds that the appellant is seeking clarifications/interpretation from the public authority, which they are not obliged to provide. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay has observed “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.”
6. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Commission concurs with the decision of the PIO/AA and the appeal is disposed of.
(Rajiv Mathur)
Central Information Commissioner
Citation: Ms. Alisha Agarwal v. UGC in File No.CIC/RM/A/2013/000629