| SNo. |
Registration No |
Appellate Authority Name |
Received date |
Reply Appeal |
Reply Doc |
| 171 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00177 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
02-10-2020 |
Ongoing through the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and First Appeal filed by the appellant, it is observed that the information, as asked for by the appellant, is not clear. It seems that the appellant in his RTI Application has referred his Second Appeal No. CIC/SEBIE/A/2020/800064, decided by commission vide order dated 04.06.2020, and has raised some questionsin respect to the submission made by the respondent public authority in above second appeal and the decision passed by the Commission on basis of that. It is also observed that the Appellant has not asked any specific question which is held by the Commission.
The CPIO, in response to the RTI application has informed the Appellant that the above case has already been disposed by the Commission with the observation that, “keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both parties, it was noted that the subject matter relates to settlement of personal grievance and therefore no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the appellant is advised to approach the appropriate forum.†The CIO in his reply has also offered the inspection of the concerned file to the Appellant. It is important to note that under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 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 and he also cannot interpret the information. Hence the reply sent by the CPIO is as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in this matter. |
NA |
| 172 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00176 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
02-10-2020 |
Ongoing through the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and First Appeal filed by the appellant, it is observed that the appellant, by referring his second Appeal No. CIC/SEBIE/A/2020/800064, decided by commission vide order dated 04.06.2020, is asking for some information/documents, pertaining to the subject matter of the case.
The CPIO, in response to the RTI application has informed the Appellant that the above case has already been disposed by the Commission with the observation that, “keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both parties, it was noted that the subject matter relates to settlement of personal grievance and therefore no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the appellant is advised to approach the appropriate forum.†The CIO in his reply has also offered the inspection of the concerned file to the Appellant. It is important to note that under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 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. Hence the reply sent by the CPIO is as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in this matter. |
NA |
| 173 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00175 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
29-09-2020 |
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, ‘whether notice/reminder to recover the penalty amount in case no. CIC/VS/A/2015/901542 decided on 05.07.2019 has been issued after 23.01.2020. Details if any, DD or other mode.â€
The CPIO, CIC in his reply has informed the Appellant that “As per available record, penalty has been recovered.†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. Hence the information provided by the CPIO is as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. However, the CPIO, Shri Ram Kumar, RTI Cell, Central Information Commission is hereby directed to send the information to the Appellant about the means (DD or other mode) by which the penalty amount has been recovered in the case in question within 15 days after receipt of this order, as has been asked for by the Appellant in his RTI Application |
NA |
| 174 |
CICOM/A/P/20/00087 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
28-09-2020 |
Please see the file. |
 |
| 175 |
CICOM/A/P/20/00086 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
28-09-2020 |
Please see the file. |
|
| 176 |
CICOM/A/P/20/00085 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
28-09-2020 |
Please see the file. |
|
| 177 |
CICOM/A/P/20/00088 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
28-09-2020 |
Please see the file. |
|
| 178 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00172 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
28-09-2020 |
The Appellant has filed three online First Appeals in respect to his three online RTI applications filed on 23.09.2020, asking same information through them. Ongoing through the RTI Applications, the replies sent by the CPIO and the First Appeals filed by the Appellant it is observed that the information asked for by the Appellant is not clear. It seems that the Appellant has asked for provisions under which personal information of a Govt. employee can be obtained or seen by other employee and under which provision the personal information of an employee can be made public by a public authority. The Appellant has also asked for decisions taken by Central Information Commission in this regard.
The CPIO, CIC in his reply has informed the Appellant that “You may go through the RTI Act, 2005 and RTI Rules, 2012 available on public domain. It is to inform you that all the decisions of Central information Commission is available on website cic.gov.in.†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. Similarly, all the decisions passed by the Commission is available on the website of the Commission in public domain. And once information has been provided in public domain and on the website, the information is no longer held by or under the control of any public authority and hence, is no longer accessible as ‘Right to information’ as has been observed by Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies &Ors vs. Dharemendra Kumar Garg&Ors[W.P.(C) 11271/2009]. Hence information provided by the CPIO is as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of FAA in these matters. |
NA |
| 179 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00174 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
28-09-2020 |
The Appellant has filed three online First Appeals in respect to his three online RTI applications filed on 23.09.2020, asking same information through them. Ongoing through the RTI Applications, the replies sent by the CPIO and the First Appeals filed by the Appellant it is observed that the information asked for by the Appellant is not clear. It seems that the Appellant has asked for provisions under which personal information of a Govt. employee can be obtained or seen by other employee and under which provision the personal information of an employee can be made public by a public authority. The Appellant has also asked for decisions taken by Central Information Commission in this regard.
The CPIO, CIC in his reply has informed the Appellant that “You may go through the RTI Act, 2005 and RTI Rules, 2012 available on public domain. It is to inform you that all the decisions of Central information Commission is available on website cic.gov.in.†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. Similarly, all the decisions passed by the Commission is available on the website of the Commission in public domain. And once information has been provided in public domain and on the website, the information is no longer held by or under the control of any public authority and hence, is no longer accessible as ‘Right to information’ as has been observed by Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies &Ors vs. Dharemendra Kumar Garg&Ors[W.P.(C) 11271/2009]. Hence information provided by the CPIO is as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of FAA in these matters. |
NA |
| 180 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00173 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
28-09-2020 |
The Appellant has filed three online First Appeals in respect to his three online RTI applications filed on 23.09.2020, asking same information through them. Ongoing through the RTI Applications, the replies sent by the CPIO and the First Appeals filed by the Appellant it is observed that the information asked for by the Appellant is not clear. It seems that the Appellant has asked for provisions under which personal information of a Govt. employee can be obtained or seen by other employee and under which provision the personal information of an employee can be made public by a public authority. The Appellant has also asked for decisions taken by Central Information Commission in this regard.
The CPIO, CIC in his reply has informed the Appellant that “You may go through the RTI Act, 2005 and RTI Rules, 2012 available on public domain. It is to inform you that all the decisions of Central information Commission is available on website cic.gov.in.†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. Similarly, all the decisions passed by the Commission is available on the website of the Commission in public domain. And once information has been provided in public domain and on the website, the information is no longer held by or under the control of any public authority and hence, is no longer accessible as ‘Right to information’ as has been observed by Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies &Ors vs. Dharemendra Kumar Garg&Ors[W.P.(C) 11271/2009]. Hence information provided by the CPIO is as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of FAA in these matters. |
NA |