| SNo. |
Registration No |
Appellate Authority Name |
Received date |
Reply Appeal |
Reply Doc |
| 111 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00222 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
18-11-2020 |
On going through the RTI Application, the reply sent by the CPIO and the First Appeal filed by the Appellant, it is observed that the Appellant through his RTI Application asked for eligibility criteria for CDS and AFCAT.
In response to the above RTI Application, the CPIO, Sh. Ram Kumar, RTI Cell, CIC, vide his letter dated 16.11.2020 informed the Appellant that, “No clarification can be given under RTI Act, 2005. You may approach the concerned authorities. Central Information Commission is the second appellate authority for the RTIs filed with Departments/Ministries under Central Government and UTs of India.â€
It is worth mentioning that as per the provision of Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collect information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. |
NA |
| 112 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00223 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
18-11-2020 |
On going through the RTI Application, the reply sent by the CPIO and the First Appeal filed by the Appellant, it is observed that the Appellant through his RTI Application asked for following information:-
1. list of cases registered in 2017 against Central information Commission which are pending for hearing as on current date of RTI.
2. Ground available in record based upon which hearing of cases mentioned at S.No. 1 is delayed as per section 4.1.b.iv.
3. Name and designation of the official accountable as per S.No.2.
2. In response to the above RTI Application, Sh. Ashok Kumar Assija, CPIO has provided the following point wise information vide Online RTI No. CICOM/R/E/20/00814/1:-
1. No such list is maintained by the registry. The pending list of the Commission is available on the website of the Commission.i.e. https://dsscic.nic.in/cause-list-report-web/view-pending-cases.
2. No such information is available on record in the registry.
3. No such information is available on record in the registry.
It is worth mentioning that as per the provision of Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collect information that is not a part of the record. Hence, the reply provided by the CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. |
NA |
| 113 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00225 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
18-11-2020 |
The Appellant through his RTI Application asked for following information:-
“Disclose the action taken against the concerned CPIO and RTI Nodal Officer on the basis of the complaint through email sent to the email address neerajk.gupta@nic.in on 15th Aug, 2020 from the email address goutam9007@gmail.comâ€. The Appellant has also mentioned that email dated 15.08.2020 from goutam9007@gmail.com is attached as Request Document.
2. In response to the above RTI Application, Sh. Ram Kumar, CPIO has informed the Appellant that “no attachment is found with your RTI. In the absence of the RTI details, your above online request is returned to youâ€.
On going through the RTI application, no supporting documents have been found with online RTI application No. CICOM/R/E/20/00819, accordingly, the reply sent by the CPIO is factual and as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005.
Now, the Appellant has submitted the copy of email dated 15th Aug 2020 with his First Appeal Petition. So, in the view of spirit of RTI Act, 2005, Sh. Ram Kumar, CPIO, RTI Cell is directed to provide a fresh information within 15 days of receipt of this order. |
NA |
| 114 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00224 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
18-11-2020 |
On going through the RTI Application, the reply sent by the CPIO and the First Appeal filed by the Appellant, it is observed that the Appellant through his RTI Application asked for following information:-
1. List of cases registered in 2018 against Central information Commission which are pending for hearing as on current date of RTI.
2. Ground available in record based upon which hearing of cases mentioned at S.No. 1 is delayed as per section 4.1.b.iv. set by CIC.
3. Name and designation of the official accountable as per S.No.2.
2. In response to the above RTI Application, Sh. Ashok Kumar Assija, CPIO has provided the following point wise information vide Online RTI No. CICOM/R/E/20/00813/1:-
1. No such list is maintained by the registry. The pending list of the Commission is available on the website of the Commission.i.e. https://dsscic.nic.in/cause-list-report-web/view-pending-cases.
2. No such information is available on record in the registry.
3. No such information is available on record in the registry.
It is worth mentioning that as per the provision of Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collect information that is not a part of the record. Hence, the reply provided by the CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. |
NA |
| 115 |
CICOM/A/P/20/00102 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
17-11-2020 |
Please see the file. |
 |
| 116 |
CICOM/A/P/20/00103 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
17-11-2020 |
Please see the file. |
|
| 117 |
CICOM/A/P/20/00105 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
17-11-2020 |
Please see the file. |
|
| 118 |
CICOM/A/P/20/00104 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
17-11-2020 |
Please see the file. |
|
| 119 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00219 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
13-11-2020 |
On going through the RTI Application, the reply sent by the CPIO and the First Appeal filed by the Appellant it is observed that the Appellant has asked for following information:
1. Total number and list of all pending cases registered in the year 2018 and prior as on current date of this RTI by the DR Shri Assija.
2. Grounds available in records along with proof based upon which S.no. 1 hearing is not scheduled by the DR thereby violating section 4.1.b.iv of CIC.
3. Total number and list of all pending cases registered in the year 2018 and prior as on date of disposal of this RTI by the DR Shri Assija.
4. Total number and list of all legal notices received by CIC from the advocate of applicants or complainants pertaining to violation of section 4.1.b.iv of CIC.
5. Copies of all documents which were prepared, executed, issued, and received pertaining to S.no. 4 along with file noting and signatures of the officials.
In response to the above RTI Application, the CPIO Shri Ashok Kumar Assija, DR to IC-VN provided following point-wise following information to the Appellant:
1. No such list is maintained by the registry. The pending list of the Commission is available on the website of the Commission. i.e. https://dsscic.nic.in/cause-list-report-web/view-pending-cases.
2. No such information is available on record in the registry.
3. No such information is available on record in the registry.
4. No such information is available on record in the registry.
5. No such information is available on record in the registry.
6. No such information is available on record in the registry.
The Appellant in his First Appeal has said that the “PIO is obstructing information deliberately, knowingly and with mala-fide intentions.â€
It is worth mentioning that as per the provision of Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authoritycan be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collect information that is not a part of the record. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO, CIC is factual and per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. |
NA |
| 120 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00220 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
13-11-2020 |
On going through the RTI Application, the reply sent by the CPIO and the First Appeal filed by the Appellant it is observed that the Appellant has asked for following information:
1. Grounds available in records based upon which hearing of case no. CIC/CICOM/C/2017/188883/CICOM is delayed as per section 4.1.b.iv.
2. Name and designation of the official accountable as per S.no. 1.
3. Copy of approval letter based upon which the hearing of the case is delayed.
4. List of all other cases which have been delayed for hearing as on current date.
5. Name, designation and official mobile number of the competent authority along with copy of approval of each case mentioned at S.no. 4.
In response to the above RTI Application, the CPIO Shri Ashok Kumar Assija, DR to IC-VN provided following point-wise following information to the Appellant:
1. No such information is available on record. However, the hearing of the case No. CIC/CICOM/C/2017/188883/CICOM has already been done on 22/10/2020.
2. No such information is available on record in the registry.
3. No such information is available on record in the registry.
4. No such information is available on record in the registry.
The Appellant in his First Appeal has said that the “PIO is obstructing information deliberately, knowingly and with mala-fide intentions.â€
It is worth mentioning that as per the provision of Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authoritycan be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collect information that is not a part of the record. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO, CIC is factual and per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. |
NA |