There are serious errors in your form submission, please see below for details.

Search RTI Appeal

List of RTI Appeal

SNo. Appellant Name Registration No Appellate Authority Name Received date Text Appeal Appeal Doc Reply Doc
1 HASIBUR ANSARI CICOM/A/2016/60159 R K SINGH 30-12-2016 Sir/ Madam, My query is : 1 ) Whether Institute of Banking Personnel Selection ( IBPS ) comes under the purview of RTI ACT - 2005 as of date. Write me a detailed reply with legal basis. NA NA
2 PANKAJ sharma CICOM/A/2016/60158 R K SINGH 29-12-2016 As per my limited understanding and knowledge if Rti request does not concerned to department its forwarded to appropriate department and not directly disposed. My request is to kindly forward to concerned department. NA NA
3 GULSHAN KUMAR KHURANA CICOM/A/2016/60157 R K SINGH 27-12-2016 1. Full name of the Appellant : Gulshan Kumar Khurana 2. Address : House No.1395, Urban Estate-II Hissar Haryana-125 005 3. Particulars of the Central Public Pushpa Janardhanan CPIO (CR) Information Officer : O/o CIC August Kranti Bhawan New Delhi. 4. Particulars of the First appellate Authority, O/o CIC First Appellate Authority August Kranti Bhawan New Delhi. 5. Date of order of CPIO 28-11-2016 6. Date of receipt of the order 28th Nov 2016 appealed against : 7 Last date for filing the appeal : 27th Dec 2016 8. The grounds for appeal : Aggieved by the reply received CPIO 9 Reasons for the First Appeal: : I have sent a Complaint(s) under section 18(1)e of the Right to Information Act,2005 To CIC on on 23rd July 2016 and the same was received in the office of the CIC on 28th July 2016. But the same is not so far registerd. The following information was required under RTI ACT:- 1) Why the complaint is not registered so far. 2) When the complaint will be registered. 3) What is the time limit for registration of complaint. 4) Whether the complaint is not registered because the same is against the CPIO of CIC Office. I have received the reply stating that Your letter in reference has been diarised vide Diary No. 163318 dated 10-08-16 and sent to Central Registry. Aggrieved by the reply of the CPIO this appeal is being made. download pdf NA
4 Munni Devi CICOM/A/2016/00395 R K SINGH 27-12-2016 provided incomplete information download pdf download pdf
5 Dr. Nityananda Das CICOM/A/2016/60156 R K SINGH 24-12-2016 Date 24.12.2016 To The FAA CIC, New Delhi Sir In response to our online RTI application ( Registration Number: CICOM/R/2016/50618 ), the CPIO intimated Query No. 1-3 Kindly go through the RTI Act, 2005 and RTI Rules, 2012 which are already available in public domain. Grounds For First Appeal 1. In my RTI application dated 5.12.2016, I mentioned that the Honourable Information Commissioner denied us information on the ground of multiplicity of RTI applications on the same matter involving no larger public interest. This decision is not an isolated or sporadic event. It is now a very common practice at CIC to deny information to citizens on the ground of multiplicity of RTI applications. It is unimaginable that Information Commissioners are ignorant of RTI Act. Thus there must be a rule / guideline etc. which most of the information commissioners are routinely following while deciding second appeals / complaints especially when RTI applicants submitted multiple RTI application on same subject. 2. Thus denying information by the CPIO is violation of the section 4(c) & (d) of the RTI Act. 3. We refer judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7571 of 2011 (SLP(C) No. 2040/2009) in the case of Institute of Chartered Account vs. Shaunak H. Satya & Ors. 18. The information to which RTI Act applies falls into two categories, namely, (i) information which promotes transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, disclosure of which helps in containing or discouraging corruption, enumerated in clauses (b) and (c) of section 4(1) of RTI Act and (ii) other information held by public authorities not falling under section 4(1)(b) and (c) of RTI Act. In regard to information falling under the first category, the public authorities owe a duty to disseminate the information widely suo moto to the public so as to make it easily accessible to the public. 4. Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act enable the public to know the reasons behind main or significant administrative or quasi judicial decisions, which affect their interest. 5. Both Sections 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act are meant to ensure that citizens are kept informed about important changes in policy, rules, acts etc. and significant administrative/ quasi judicial decisions affecting the interest of the citizen. 6. On the above grounds, we are requesting to kindly examine the validity of our queries as well as the denials of CPIO that were made in defiance of clauses (b) and (c) of section 4(1) of RTI Act. 7. The CPIO may be asked to provide us the requisite information in respect of Query No. 1, 2 & 3 sought in my RTI application 5.12.2016. Yours faithfully Nityananda Das PAR Division IGFRI, Gwalior Road Jhansi UP 284003 NA NA
6 Chandana Das CICOM/A/2016/60152 R K SINGH 22-12-2016 Date 22.12.2016 To The FAA CIC, New Delhi Sir In response to our online RTI application ( Registration Number: CICOM/R/2016/50617 ), the CPIO intimated online that this Commission has no other information except that is available in RTI Act, 2005 & RTI Rules, 2012 which are already available in public domain. As I am not satisfied with the reply of CPIO, I prefer to submit my First Appeal. Grounds For First Appeal 1. In my RTI application dated 5.12.2016, I mentioned that the Honourable Information Commissioner denied us information on the ground of multiplicity of RTI applications. This decision is not an isolated or sporadic event. It is now a very common practice at CIC to deny information to citizens on the ground of multiplicity of RTI applications. It is unimaginable that Information Commissioners are ignorant of RTI Act. Thus there must be a rule / guideline etc. which most of the information commissioners are routinely following while deciding second appeals / complaints especially when RTI applicants submitted multiple RTI application on same subject. 2. Thus denying information by the CPIO is violation of the section 4(c) & (d) of the RTI Act. 3. We refer judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7571 of 2011 (SLP(C) No. 2040/2009) in the case of Institute of Chartered Account vs. Shaunak H. Satya & Ors. 18. The information to which RTI Act applies falls into two categories, namely, (i) information which promotes transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, disclosure of which helps in containing or discouraging corruption, enumerated in clauses (b) and (c) of section 4(1) of RTI Act and (ii) other information held by public authorities not falling under section 4(1)(b) and (c) of RTI Act. In regard to information falling under the first category, the public authorities owe a duty to disseminate the information widely suo moto to the public so as to make it easily accessible to the public. 4. Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act enable the public to know the reasons behind main or significant administrative or quasi judicial decisions, which affect their interest. 5. Both Sections 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act are meant to ensure that citizens are kept informed about important changes in policy, rules, acts etc. and significant administrative/ quasi judicial decisions affecting the interest of the citizen. 6. On the above grounds, we are requesting to kindly examine the validity of our queries as well as the denials of CPIO that were made in defiance of clauses (b) and (c) of section 4(1) of RTI Act. 7. The CPIO may be asked to provide us the requisite information at the earliest. Yours faithfully Chandana Das PAR Division IGFRI, Gwalior Road Jhansi UP 284003 NA NA
7 Chandana Das CICOM/A/2016/60153 R K SINGH 22-12-2016 Date 22.12.2016 To The FAA CIC, New Delhi Sir In response to our online RTI application dated 16.12.2016 ( Registration Number: CICOM/R/2016/50650 ), the CPIO intimated online that this Commission has no other information except that is available in RTI Act, 2005 & RTI Rules, 2012 which are already available in public domain. As I am not satisfied with the reply of CPIO, I prefer to submit my First Appeal. Grounds For First Appeal 1. In my RTI application dated 16.12.2016, I mentioned that the Honourable Information Commissioner denied us information on the ground of multiplicity of RTI applications. This type of decision is not an isolated or sporadic event. It is now a very common practice at CIC to deny information to citizens on the ground of multiplicity of RTI applications. It is unimaginable that Information Commissioners are ignorant of RTI Act. Thus there must be a procedure / guideline etc. which most of the information commissioners are routinely following while deciding second appeals / complaints especially when RTI applicants submitted multiple RTI application on same subject. 2. Thus denying information by the CPIO is violation of the section 4(c) & (d) of the RTI Act. 3. We refer judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7571 of 2011 (SLP(C) No. 2040/2009) in the case of Institute of Chartered Account vs. Shaunak H. Satya & Ors. 18. The information to which RTI Act applies falls into two categories, namely, (i) information which promotes transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, disclosure of which helps in containing or discouraging corruption, enumerated in clauses (b) and (c) of section 4(1) of RTI Act and (ii) other information held by public authorities not falling under section 4(1)(b) and (c) of RTI Act. In regard to information falling under the first category, the public authorities owe a duty to disseminate the information widely suo moto to the public so as to make it easily accessible to the public. 4. Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act enable the public to know the reasons behind main or significant administrative or quasi judicial decisions, which affect their interest. 5. Both Sections 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act are meant to ensure that citizens are kept informed about important changes in policy, rules, acts etc. and significant administrative/ quasi judicial decisions affecting the interest of the citizen. 6. On the above grounds, we are requesting to kindly examine the validity of our queries as well as the denials of CPIO that were made in defiance of clauses (b) and (c) of section 4(1) of RTI Act. 7. The CPIO may be asked to provide us the requisite information sought in our RTI application dated 16.12.2016 at the earliest. Yours faithfully Chandana Das PAR Division IGFRI, Gwalior Road Jhansi UP 284003 NA NA
8 Chandana Das CICOM/A/2016/60154 R K SINGH 22-12-2016 Date 22.12.2016 To The FAA CIC, New Delhi Sir In response to our online RTI application dated 11.12.2016 ( Registration Number: CICOM/R/2016/50638 ), the CPIO intimated online that this Commission has no other information except that is available in RTI Act, 2005 & RTI Rules, 2012 which are already available in public domain. As I am not satisfied with the reply of CPIO, I prefer to submit my First Appeal. Grounds For First Appeal 1. In my RTI application dated 11.12.2016, I mentioned that the Honourable Information Commissioner denied us information on the ground of multiplicity of RTI applications. This type of decision is not an isolated or sporadic event. It is now a very common practice at CIC to deny information to citizens on the ground of multiplicity of RTI applications. It is unimaginable that Information Commissioners are ignorant of RTI Act. Thus there must be a rule / procedure / guideline etc. which most of the information commissioners are routinely following while deciding second appeals / complaints especially when RTI applicants submitted multiple RTI application on same subject. 2. Thus denying information by the CPIO is violation of the section 4(c) & (d) of the RTI Act. 3. We refer judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7571 of 2011 (SLP(C) No. 2040/2009) in the case of Institute of Chartered Account vs. Shaunak H. Satya & Ors. 18. The information to which RTI Act applies falls into two categories, namely, (i) information which promotes transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, disclosure of which helps in containing or discouraging corruption, enumerated in clauses (b) and (c) of section 4(1) of RTI Act and (ii) other information held by public authorities not falling under section 4(1)(b) and (c) of RTI Act. In regard to information falling under the first category, the public authorities owe a duty to disseminate the information widely suo moto to the public so as to make it easily accessible to the public. 4. Section 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act enable the public to know the reasons behind main or significant administrative or quasi judicial decisions, which affect their interest. 5. Both Sections 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act are meant to ensure that citizens are kept informed about important changes in policy, rules, acts etc. and significant administrative/ quasi judicial decisions affecting the interest of the citizen. 6. On the above grounds, we are requesting to kindly examine the validity of our queries as well as the denials of CPIO that were made in defiance of clauses (b) and (c) of section 4(1) of RTI Act. 7. The CPIO may be asked to provide us the requisite information sought in our RTI application dated 11.12.2016 at the earliest. Yours faithfully Chandana Das PAR Division IGFRI, Gwalior Road Jhansi UP 284003 NA NA
9 Dr. Nityananda Das CICOM/A/2016/60151 R K SINGH 18-12-2016 Date: 18.12.16 To The First Appellate Authority CIC Sir This RTI application was submitted on 23.09.2016. The CPIO, CIC transferred the RTI application to DoPT on 05.10.2016. We waited for more than two months but the DoPT did not provide any information to us. The CPIO, CIC neither provided us any details of the CPIO, DoPT to whom the RTI application was transferred on 05.10.2016 nor he provided us the Registration Number ( if the RTI application was transferred online). The CPIO, CIC also did not mention whether the RTI application was transferred to DoPT under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. As a result we are not in a position to submit our first appeal to the FAA, DoPT. Hence, we are requesting you to forward this First Appeal to the concerned FAA, DoPT OR intimate us the details of transfer of RTI application so that we can submit our First Appeal accordingly. Yours faithfully (Nityananda Das) PAR Division IGFRI, Jhansi UP 284003 Mobile 09452591637 NA NA
10 रामजी साव CICOM/A/2016/60150 R K SINGH 17-12-2016 सेवा में, प्रथम अपीलीय पदाधिकारी केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग,नई दिल्ली विषय:-सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम -2005 की धारा 19(1) के तहत जनसूचना पदाधिकारी के विरुद्ध प्रथम अपीलवाद दायर करने के संबंध में। महाशय, निवेदक पूर्वक कहना है कि सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 की धारा 19(1) के तहत जनसूचना पदाधिकारी के विरुद्ध निम्नलिखित कारणों के आधार पर प्रथम अपीलवाद दायर किया जा रहा है। (1)यह कि सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 के तहत 11/11/2016 को आवेदन जनसूचना पदाधिकारी को सम्बोधित किया। (2)यह कि जनसूचना पदाधिकारी के द्वारा दो बिंदुओं में से बिन्दु सं०-2 का सूचना भ्रामक हैं। (3)यह कि जनसूचना पदाधिकारी से वर्तमान में याचित सूचनाएँ अप्राप्त हैं। (4)यह कि,जनसूचना पदाधिकारी ने भ्रामक सूचनाओं को प्रदान करके प्रथम अपीलीय पदाधिकारी के न्यायिक अधिकार क्षेत्र में कानून का उल्लंघन किया हैं। (5)यह कि,जन सूचना पदाधिकारी ने भ्रामक सूचनाओं को प्रदान किये जाने के कारण अधिनियम की अवमानना हुई हैं। अत: उपरांकित तथ्यों के परिप्रेक्ष्य में आपसे नियमोंचित करवाई हेतु अनुरोध किया जा रहा हैं। विश्वासभाजन रामजी साव पता-हॅास्पीटल कॅालोनी डुमरा, आवास सं०-ए/19,पो०-नावागढ़, जिला-धनबाद राज्य-झारखंड पिन कोड-828306 NA NA