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
161 CICOM/A/E/20/00185 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 18-10-2020 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 information regarding total numbers of CPIOs, CAPIOs and FAAs appointed in newly formed UTs, J&K and Laddakh since their formation till 31st August, 2020, total nos. of RTI applications filed and disposed off under various categories during the period, number of Second Appeals, pending with State Information Commission and number of cases transferred to Central Information Commission and other related information against 7 points. The CPIO, CIC, RTI Cell, in his reply dated 21.09.2020 informed the Appellant that information against point nos. 1 to 5 is not available in Central Information Commission and advised the Appellant to contact to the CPIOs of UTs of J&K and UT of Laddakh. For rest of the information, against point nos. 6 & 7, the CPIO, RTI Cell transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, MR Section. The Appellant in his First Appeal petition, by quoting article 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 has requested to direct the CPIO to transfer the RTI Application u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act to the concerned CPIOs of UTs J&K and Laddakh for the information against point nos. 1 to 5 and to direct the CPIO, MR Section to provide the information against point nos. 6 & 7, since no response has been received by the Appellant in this regard. The CPIO, RTI Cell, CIC, in his comments, has intimated that the present RTI Application of the Appellant has been filed online and concerned public authorities of UTs of J&K and Ladakh are yet to be registered on the ‘rti portal’ by themselves. Hence, the RTI Application cannot be transferred to them online. Therefore, the Appellant was informed to file his Application directly to them. The undersigned agrees with the comments submitted by the CPIO, RTI Cell, CIC. The Appellant, if desires, can file his RTI Application directly to the concerned public authorities of the UTs for the information against point nos. 1 to 5. In light of the above, the CPIO, RTI Cell, is hereby directed to send a reply to the Appellant against point nos. 6 & 7 of the RTI Application within 15 days after getting it received from MR Section u/s5(4) of the RTI Act, 2005 within 15 days after receipt of this order. NA
162 CICOM/A/E/20/00183 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 14-10-2020 प्रार्थी द्वारा वांछित सूचना, जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रेषित जवाब और प्रार्थी द्वारा दाखिल प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर यह स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी ने अपने प्रस्तुत आवेदन के माध्यम से दिनांक 01.01.2020 से आवेदन की तिथि तक आउटसोर्सड एजेंसियों ‘बी. के. इंटरप्राइजेज’ और ‘जिनेन्द्र’ को आउटसोर्सड कर्मचारियों के वेतन हेतु किये गए भुगतान की तिथियाँ और आयोग के लीगल कंसल्टेंट्स और रिटायर्ड कंसल्टेंट्स को किये गए भुगतान की तिथियों की मांग की है। उपरोक्त आरटीआई के जवाब में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी, श्री उप-सचिव ने दिनांक 11.09.2020 के पत्र के माध्यम से प्रार्थी को यह सूचित किया है कि, “ऐसा कोई रिकॉर्ड नहीं रखा जाता है।” उल्लेखनीय है कि प्रार्थी ने अपने प्रथम अपील में यह अभियोग लगाया है कि आयोग से किये जाने वाले भुगतान और कर्मचारियों के वेतन का कोई रिकॉर्ड नहीं रखा जाता है, जो निराधार है। आर.टी.आई. अधिनियम के अंतर्गत एक जन सूचना अधिकारी केवल मांगी गई सूचना के परिप्रेक्ष्य में रिकॉर्ड में उपलब्ध सूचना ही प्रदान कर सकता है। प्रार्थी के प्रस्तुत प्रथम अपील के सन्दर्भ ने सम्बंधित जन सूचना अधिकारी ने अपनी टिप्पणी में यह अवगत कराया है कि आयोग के आउटसोर्सड कर्मचारियों को सम्बंधित एजेंसियों द्वारा किये जाने वाले वेतन भुगतान की तिथि से सम्बंधित विवरण सम्बंधित एजेंसी और उसके कर्मचारियों के बीच की विषय-वस्तु है। इस सम्बन्ध में कोई सूचना आयोग में उपलब्द्ध नहीं है। इसी प्रकार आउटसोर्सड एजेंसियों अथवा लीगल कंसल्टेंट्स/रिटायर्ड कंसल्टेंट्स के वेतन भुगतान की तिथि का संकलन भी आयोग में नहीं किया जाता है। हालाँकि इस सम्बन्ध में सम्बंधित प्राधिकरण, जो भुगतान जारी करता है, से सूचना प्राप्त कर प्रार्थी को प्रेषित की जा सकती है। उपरोक्त तथ्यों के आलोक में केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी, श्री एस. के रब्बानी, उप-सचिव को यह निर्देश दिया जाता है कि प्रस्तुत आदेश की प्राप्ति से 15 दिनों के अन्दर प्रार्थी के प्रस्तुत आरटीआई. के सन्दर्भ में प्रश्नगत आउटसोर्सड एजेंसियों तथा लीगल/रिटायर्ड कंसलटेंट को आवेदन में इंगित अवधि के अंतर्गत वेतन के सन्दर्भ में किये गए भुगतान की तिथि की सूचना एकत्रित कर प्रार्थी को प्रेषित करें। NA
163 CICOM/A/E/20/00184 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 14-10-2020 Ongoing 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 information regarding number and details of Departments/Ministries, who have submitted/not submitted the compliance report to Central Information Commission in respect to suo-motu disclosure u/s 4 of RTI Act as per an OM of DoP&T. The Appellant has however not given the details of the DoP&T’s OM in his RTI Application. The CPIO, CIC in his reply dated 23.09.2020 has informed the Appellant that, “Under Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005, CIC has been making suo motu disclosure regularly which may be seen on its website.” and “No other department is supposed to submit the disclosure to CIC. CIC does not have any instructions/mandate from DoPT in this regard. The copy of DoPT OM as quoted by the applicant may be provided by the applicant to examine the matter further.” The Appellant in his First Appeal, by giving details of DoP&T’s OM, i.e. No. 1/6/2011-IR dated 05.11.2019 has requested to “direct the CPIO to provide the desired information as per RTI application.” In light of the details of the concerned OM of DoP&T, as provided by the Appellant in his First Appeal, the CPIO, Shri C. Vinod Babu is directed to send a revised reply to the Appellant within 15 days after receipt of this order. NA
164 CICOM/A/E/20/00182 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-10-2020 Ongoing 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 has asked for information regarding “zone wise vacancies of Assistant Enforcement Directorate to be recruited through SSC CGL Examination 2019”. The Appellant, in his RTI Application, has informed that the above information was asked for earlier from Ministry of Revenue, but after getting unsatisfactory reply and dissatisfied with the order passed by FAA, Ministry of Revenue, he has filed Appeal as per the direction by the FAA. The CPIO, CIC in his reply has informed the Appellant that “Please refer to your online RTI application received in Central Information Commission on 26.09.2020. If you are not satisfied with the First Appellate Authority’s reply against your first appeal, then you should file second appeal with the Central Information enclosing there with all the necessary documents as per RTI Act, 2005.” It is observed that the Appellant has filed his Second Appeal in the form of RTI Application. It is worth mentioning here that the Central Information Commission is the second and final Appellate Authority under RTI Act against Central Public Authorities. CIC receives Complains u/s 18 and Second Appeal u/s 19(3) of RTI Act online, only through the web link available on the website of CIC, i.e. cic.gov.in., not in the form of RTI Application. The Appellant can also file his complain or Second Appeal offline as per format provided under RTI Rules, 2012, which is available in public domain and also on website of the Commission Hence the information provided by the CPIO, suggesting the Appellant to file Second Appeal with the Commission, is as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of FAA in this matter. NA
165 CICOM/A/E/20/00181 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-10-2020 Ongoing through the RTI Application, the reply sent by the CPIO and the First Appeal filed by the Appellant it is observed that the Appellant, by referring his Second Appeal No. CIC/BHELD/A/2018/637407, decided by Commission on dated 29.05.2020, has asked for copy of response sent by the concerned CPIO to the Appellant, as has been mentioned in the above 2nd Appeal Order, action taken on his e-mail dated 13.08.2020 and related documents in this regards. The CPIO, Sh. S. C. Sharma, in his reply dated 28.09.2020, has informed the Appellant that “Interpretation of Commission’s order/rules/documents etc., is not within the purview of the CPIO. However, documents, including written submissions of CPIO (concerned), as available in file No. CIC/BHELD/A/2018/637407, is enclosed.” The CPIO, CIC has further informed the Appellant that no action has been taken on his mail dated 13.08.2020. It is worth mentioning here 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 information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or furnished replies to the hypothetical questions.In respect to point No. 1 of the RTI Application, the CPIO, CIC has already sent the copy of written submission of the concerned CPIO, which is available in record. For the rest of the information, the Appellant has been informed that no action has been taken on his e-mail dated 13.08.2020. Hence, the information sent by the CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005 and therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA
166 CICOM/A/P/20/00089 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-10-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
167 CICOM/A/P/20/00090 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-10-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
168 CICOM/A/E/20/00180 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-10-2020 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 information regarding action taken on his representation dated 12.09.2020, which was sent to President’s Secretariat, Prime Minister, General Officer Commanding, HQ Southern Command, C/o 56 APO, Central Organization ECHS Delhi Cantt., New Delhi including Central Information Commission in respect to non-compliance of the Order passed by the Central Information Commission in his Second Appeal No. CIC/IARMY/A/2018/164169. The CPIO, CIC, RTI Cell, in his reply informed the Appellant to concerned Public Authority for the desired information. The Appellant in his First Appeal has submitted that, “it is the duty of the Public Information Officer, Central Information Commission to transfer the RTI application to the appropriate authority of the Central Information Commission, I would be grateful if the same can be completed as per the Right to Information Act, 2005.” It is also observed from the facts available in record that the CPIO, RTI Cell also transferred the RTI Application of the Appellant to the CPIO, DO to IC-VN and an online reply has also been sent to Appellant on 26.10.2020, informing him that compliance report dated 25.09.2020 in respect to Second Appeal order No. CIC/ IARMY/A/2018/164169 dated 13.07.2020 has been received from concerned CPIO, which is addressed to the Appellant and its copy has been endorsed to the Commission. The CPIO, DO to IC-VN has also attached the copy of the letter with his reply. In light of the above, the desired information has already been provided to the Appellant and hence, nothing remains for the undersigned to decide. NA
169 CICOM/A/E/20/00178 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-10-2020 Ongoing through the RTI Application, the reply sent by the CPIO and the First Appeal filed by the Appellant it is observed that the Appellant, by referring his Complaint No. CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/602438, disposed off by the Commission on dated 31.08.2020, has asked for copy of Rules/Regulations/Guidelines of Supreme Court on basis of that the above complaint has been decided allegedly by bypassing section 18(1)(e), list of such type of the decided Cases of the bench, the authority, to whom complaint can be filed in this regard and other related information against 4 point. The CPIO, Sh. S. C. Sharma, in respect to point No. 1 of the RTI Application, has informed the Appellant that “Interpretation of Commission’s order/documents is not within the ambit of the CPIO. However, the CIC order No. CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/602438 dated 31.08.2020, is self- explanatory.” In respect to point No. 2 the Appellant has been informed that “No specific information has been asked for. However, all the decisions of the CIC are available on the CIC site i.e. ‘cic.gov.in’ and you may visit this site to obtain information. Further, for point No. 3, the Appellant has been informed that “No specific information has been asked for and hence unable to provide the same.” and for point No. 4 the Appellant has been intimated that, “No assistance has been sought for in disposing the RTI application.” It is worth mentioning here 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 information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or furnished replies to the hypothetical questions. Whatever the Appellant has asked for against point No.1, is the interpretation of decision passed by the Commission and a CPIO is not competent for that under the provision of RTI Act. Similarly, rest queries have also been responded on the basis of availability of information in record. Hence, the information provided by the CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005 and therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA
170 CICOM/A/E/20/00179 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-10-2020 The present First Appeal has been filed by the Appellant in respect to his RTI Application dated 20.02.2020, filed u/s 7(1) of RTI Act, 2005, complaining non receipt of reply within 48 hours. The Appellant in his First Appeal petition has mentioned that he had filed First Appeal in continuation to his RTI Application at first on 26.02.2020 through mail, but getting no response, he has again filed the present Appeal online with the Commission. Ongoing through the RTI Application, the replies sent by the CPIO and the First Appeal filed by the Appellant it is observed that the Appellant has asked for information regarding action taken on his two emails dated 18.02.2020 & 20.02.2020, which were sent against issuance of facilitation memo to the Appellant in respect to his complaint filed vide Diary No. 663694 dated 18.02.2020 to the Commission as well as other related information. Together with, the Appellant has also asked for information regarding time limits for listing of cases in the Commission for hearing and status regarding compliance of orders No. CIC/KY/C/2015/000158 and CIC/SA/C/2014/000268 by Commission. It is observed that, by considering the RTI Application u/s 6(1), not u/s 7(1), of the RTI Act, the CPIO, CIC, Sh. T. B. J. S. Rajappa, provided point-wise information to the Appellant in respect to point nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 10 of the RTI Application. In respect to point nos. 3 & 9, Sh. Krishan Avtar Talwar, Dy. Secretary & CPIO vide his letter dated 05.03.2020 and in respect to point no. 6, Sh. R. P. Grover, CPIO & DR to IC-YS vide his letter 12.03.2020 provided respective information to the Appellant. The First Appeal should have been filed online through the portal as per prescribed procedure, and not through e-mail, as stated to have been filed by the Appellant. It is also noted that the present First Appeal of the Appellant is time-barred, since it should have been filed within 30 days after receipt of the replies from the CPIOs. Even if this fact is ignored in light of the situation of lockdown due to corona pandemic, the replies given by the CPIOs are factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act. It is worth mentioning here 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. Accordingly the CPIOs, CIC have provided information to the Appellant as per information available in record. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of FAA in this matter. NA