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
181 CICOM/A/E/20/00169 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-09-2020 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 regarding disciplinary/ penal provisions against a CPIO who has asked for fees under RTI from a citizen, who is under BPL category and has already attached copy of his BPL certificate with his RTI Application. Together with the Appellant has also asked for information regarding complain mechanism. The CPIO, CIC in his reply has informed the Appellant that “No queries/comments can be given under RTI Act. However, for desired information, you may go through the RTI Act, 2005 and RTI Rules 2012 available on public domain.” 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. 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, relevant Sections 18 and 19(3) of RTI Act, 2005 and ‘RTI Rules, 2012’, provides the provisions and procedure of filing Complaint/Second Appeal, which are available in public domain and on the website of the Commission also. 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 this matter. NA
182 CICOM/A/E/20/00171 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-09-2020 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 copies of recommendations made by Central Information Commission u/s 25(5) of RTI Act to the public authorities and has requested the Commission to disclose proactively the RTI Applications received in the Commission and their responses on the website of the Commission in accordance with the DoP&T OM No. 1/62011-IR dated 15.04.2013 The CPIO, CIC in his reply against point No. 1 has informed the Appellant that, “No information is available regarding to the recommendation issued to the Pas under section 25(5) of RTI Act, 2005” and against point No. 2 the Appellant has been informed that, “The RTI replies are available on CIC website i.e. www.cic.gov.in. The direct link for the rti replies is cic.gov.in/rti-reply.” 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. 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 this matter. NA
183 CICOM/A/E/20/00170 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-09-2020 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 guidelines and procedure of seeking information pertaining to a third party. 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 for desired information.” 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. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. Hence information provided by the CPIO is as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant may go through the relevant Sections of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of FAA in this matter. NA
184 CICOM/A/P/20/00084 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 22-09-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
185 CICOM/A/E/20/00168 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 22-09-2020 Ongoing through the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and First Appeal filed by the appellant, it is observed that the Appellant has asked for the documentary proof of putting his request vide diary No. 664043 dated 20.02.2020 to Central Information Commissioner Ms.Vanaja N Sarnafor urgent hearing in disposed case File No. CIC/IIITV/A/2019/657185 and copy of procedure of dealing with non-compliance petition in the Central Information Commission. The CPIO in respect to point No. 1 of RTI Application sent the copy of noting dated 15.09.2020 to the Appellant and in respect to information against point No. 2, the appellant was informed the procedure of dealing the non-compliance petition in the Commission. The Appellant, in his First Appeal Petition, has not made any complain against the information provided by the CPIO, but he is aggrieved with the decision of the concerned officer of the Registry of IC-VN for recommending his case of non-compliance to close on the basis of compliance report submitted by the concerned public authority. It is worth mentioning here 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. Accordingly, the information sent by the CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, further intervention is not required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA
186 CICOM/A/E/20/00167 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 21-09-2020 Ongoing through the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and First Appeal filed by the appellant, it is observed that the Appellant has asked for action taken on his e-mail dated 15.08.2020, sent to Joint Secretary & Chief Vigilance Officer, CIC and the former CIC, Sh. BimalJulka together with complete copies of files Nos. CICNDMCL/A/2017/120745 and CIC/NDMCL/A/2017/176730. The CPIO, in his reply dated 18.09.2020, informed the Appellant that the “1. the referred e-mail not transfer to the registry as such information cannot be provided by me. 2. Total number of pages in both the appeal files are 121 as you are requested to deposited a sum of Rs. 484 in the Commission for providing the two sets of the complete file pl. note that files are in PDF format further second file number has been given as 176730 instead of 176230.” It is worth mentioning here 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. Accordingly, the information sent by the CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. As far as question of providing complete copies of second appeal files free of cost is concerned, it is observed that the RTI Application, after being it received on 23.08.2020 in the RTI Cell, CIC, was forwarded to concerned CPIO and was disposed off on 18.09.2020, which is within the time mandated under RTI Act, 2005. Hence, further intervention is not required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA
187 CICOM/A/E/20/00166 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 17-09-2020 Ongoing through the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and First Appeal filed by the appellant, it is observed that the Appellant has asked for “copy of Domestic Incident Report (DIR report) of the case registration No. 42/2019 CRN Number: MHTH090006112019 in the court of 5th Jt. C.J.J.D.J.M.F.C. Kalyan.” The CPIO, in his reply dated 20.08.2020, informed the Appellant that the “information sought for in your RTI Application is not available in Central Information Commission. The matter does not come under the jurisdiction of CIC, since it is State matter and CIC cannot interfere. You are advised to approach the concerned Authority. Central Information Commission is the second appellate authority for the RTI filed with department/ministries under Central Government and UTs of India.” It is important to note that under provisions of Section 6(1) of RTI Act, 2005, a person, who desires to obtain information, has to file his RTI Application to concerned public authority, which holds the information and Complaint or 2nd Appeal under Section 18 or 19(3) respectively, if any is field with Central Information Commission or State Information Commission as the case may be. The information asked for by the Appellant, is not held by Central Information Commission. Further, Central Information Commission is the Second Appellate Authority and receives Second Appeal/Complaint under RTI against the Central Public Authorities only. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO is factual and as per the provision of the Act. Therefore, further intervention is not required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA
188 CICOM/A/P/20/00083 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 17-09-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
189 CICOM/A/E/20/00165 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 16-09-2020 Ongoing through the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and First Appeal filed by the appellant, it is observed that the Appellant has asked for information regarding action taken on his e-mail dated 14.08.2020, through which complaint for non-compliance of six Second Appeal Orders were forwarded to the Commission. The CPIO, in his reply dated 14.08.2020, informed the Appellant that his “non-compliance matters have been registered but as yet no action has been taken.” The CPIO also apprised the Appellant of the order given by the Commission in each case and the status of compliance made by the concerned respondent in that context, as was available in concerned case file. It is worth mentioning here 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. Accordingly, the information sent by the CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005, wherein the Appellant has also been informed that, “Non-compliance as registered in the CIC are being dealt with separately.” Hence, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in this matter. NA
190 CICOM/A/E/20/00164 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 15-09-2020 प्रार्थी द्वारा वांछित सूचना, केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा दिए गए जवाब और प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने से यह स्पष्ट है कि, प्रार्थी ने अपने आवेदन के माध्यम से दिनांक 01.01.2019 से लेकर 03.09.2019 तक आयोग के सभी कार्यक्रमों के आयोजनों में खर्च की गई कुल राशिका माहवार विवरण और ऐसे आयोजनों के सञ्चालन की जिम्मेदारी एक प्राइवेट केयरटेकर को देनेके आधार की सूचना के साथ-साथ उक्त आयोजनों हेतु वरिष्ठअधिकारियों से प्राप्त किये अनुमोदन से सम्बंधित सभी फाइलों की नोटिंग और भुगतान किये गए बिलोंके प्रतियों की मांग की थी। केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी ने दिनांक 11.09.2020 के अपने जवाब में प्रार्थी को यह सूचित किया कि कार्यक्रमों के आयोजन के खर्च का माह के अनुसार रिकॉर्ड नहीं रखा जाता है तथा आयोजनों के लिए अनुमोदन भिन्न-भिन्न फाइलों में आयोजनके अनुसार ली जाती है, जिसका कोई संगठित रिकॉर्ड नहीं रखा जाता है। यहाँउल्लेखनीयहै कि प्रार्थी ने किसी कार्यक्रम याआयोजन विशेष की सूचना की मांग नहीं की है, बल्कि उन्होंने एक अवधि विशेष में आयोजित सभी कार्यक्रमों के सम्बन्ध में सूचना की मांग की है। जैसा कि केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा अवगत कराया गया है,आयोजनों के लिए अधिकारियों का अनुमोदन आयोजन के अनुसार लिया जाता है और इनका कोई समेकित रिकॉर्ड नहीं रखा जाता है। अधोहस्ताक्षरी की राय में केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी ने वांछित सूचना के सन्दर्भ में प्रार्थी को तथ्यात्मक वस्तुस्थिति से अवगत करा दिया है, जोसूचना अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप है।अत: प्रस्तुत मामले में प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप की आवश्यकता नहीं है। NA