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

Search RTI Appeal

List of RTI Appeal

SNo. Registration No Appellate Authority Name Received date Reply Appeal Reply Doc
1041 CICOM/A/2018/60137 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 03-09-2018 On perusal of the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and appeal, it is observed that deemed CPIO has provided factual information and since first appeal reportedly sent through email dated 25.10.2017 was not found available in the email I/D of FAA, the question of providing information as sought in the RTI application does not arise. Secondly, deemed CPIO has only intimated about the mode of communication adopted in the Commission for receiving RTI applications, first appeals and 2nd appeals/complaints. Further taking into consideration of the facts mentioned in the appeal regarding reason for filing of second first appeal through email, the first appeal dated 25.10.2017 sent along with online RTI application dated 02.08.2018 has been registered and being decided separately. In the 1st appeal, request has been made to order for an enquiry to find out who deleted first appeal application from FAA’s email, is not agreed to in view of the position explained above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1042 CICOM/A/2018/60136 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 31-08-2018 The appellant sought inspection of RTI Act, 2005 at Central Information Commission. CPIO informed him that it is already available in public domain. In the appeal, appellant stated that “Information available on web is not considered certified so I want inspection at Central Information Commission.” The inspection sought is ambiguous. However, it is to mention that CIC has not formulated RTI Act, 2005. The RTI Act, 2005 was passed by Parliament, received the assent of the President of India on 15th June, 2005 and notified by Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India vide The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section-I, Sl.No.25 dated 21st June, 2005. Therefore, the question of inspection of RTI Act, 2005 at CIC does not arise. NA
1043 CICOM/A/2018/60135 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 31-08-2018 In the appeal, appellant has alleged that though he found reply 31.07.2018 of the CPIO in RTI online software but the same is not received by post to him. He has also not received reply on Point-5 of the RTI application. In this regard, Shri R.P. Grover, CPIO & DO to IC(YA) has informed that postal department returned the envelope containing reply dated 31 .07.2018 along with its enclosures with the remarks that “Is Flat Mai Is Naam Ka Koi Nahi Rehta”. It is observed that there is some difference in the address given in the online RTI application and first appeal. Hence, the appellant cannot blame CPIO for not sending reply. However, a copy of reply dated 31.07.2018 of Shri R.P. Grover and reply dated 08.08.2018 of Shri Kishore Kumar Pukhral, Consultant/CPIO, Legal Cell on Point-5 along with all enclosures of the above said replies are attached herewith. download pdf
1044 CICOM/A/2018/00205 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 31-08-2018 please see the file download pdf
1045 CICOM/A/2018/60133 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 30-08-2018 In the RTI application, appellant has sought (1) description of the penalties imposed by the Hon’ble Central Information Commission from 2008 till 2017 and (2) description of the individuals/institutions/departments/authorities who have been penalized and have not paid the penalty. CPIO in his reply intimated that the query on point-1 is not clear, however, he has provided a list of total number of cases wherein penalty and penalty amount imposed by the Commission. On point-2, CPIO denied to provide information by stating that this information relates to third party and also it does not seems to serve larger public interest. In the appeal, appellant stated that “1 Clarification to the first query is to obtain information on which and what all cases penalty was issued by the Honble Commission. This information is already in public domain as Hon’ble Commission is publicly issuing its orders. The larger public interest can be derived, as various CPIOs will stop misusing penalty clause under the statue if proper adjudication is sought on this point of law.” In this regard, Shri Krishan Avtar Talwar, CPIO & DR to CR-I has been called for who stated that information sought on Point-1 as clarified by the appellant cannot be provided being third party information and does not seems to serve larger public interest and he also stand with his reply on Point-2. I am in agreement with the stand taken by the CPIO, which is appropriate in the light of the RTI Act and, therefore, upheld the decision of the CPIO. NA
1046 CICOM/A/2018/60134 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 30-08-2018 On perusal of the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and submissions made in the first appeal, it is clarified that although CIC is the Second Appellate Authority under RTI Act, 2005 but CPIO, CIC is oblige to respond on the RTI application pertains to the CIC as a public authority. He does not have any authority to interpret RTI Act. Department of Personal & Training (DoPT), Govt. of India is the Nodal Ministry for the Right to Information Act, therefore, CPIO has correctly transferred Point regarding limit for filing RTI applications. As regards other information sought in the RTI application, CPIO has supplied factually correct information as per the record available with him, therefore, no interference is required, in the matter. NA
1047 CICOM/A/2018/00203 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 29-08-2018 please see the file download pdf
1048 CICOM/A/2018/00204 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 29-08-2018 please see the file download pdf
1049 CICOM/A/2018/00201 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 29-08-2018 please see the file download pdf
1050 CICOM/A/2018/00202 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 29-08-2018 please see the file download pdf