| SNo. |
Registration No |
Appellate Authority Name |
Received date |
Reply Appeal |
Reply Doc |
| 701 |
CICOM/A/2019/00110 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
06-06-2019 |
please see the file |
 |
| 702 |
CICOM/A/2019/60083 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
03-06-2019 |
In the appeal, appellant has stated that in the reply of the CPIO, copy of show cause notice is mentioned as attached but no such document is found attached and requested to provide a copy of the same.
On perusal of the RTI online portal, it is noticed |
NA |
| 703 |
CICOM/A/2019/00107 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
03-06-2019 |
please see the file |
|
| 704 |
CICOM/A/2019/60084 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
03-06-2019 |
On perusal of the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and appeal, it is observed that reply furnished by the CPIO appears to be appropriate, therefore, no intervention is required on the part of the FAA, in the matter. |
NA |
| 705 |
CICOM/A/2019/00109 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
03-06-2019 |
please see the file |
|
| 706 |
CICOM/A/2019/00108 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
03-06-2019 |
please see the file |
|
| 707 |
CICOM/A/2019/00105 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
03-06-2019 |
please see the file |
|
| 708 |
CICOM/A/2019/00106 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
03-06-2019 |
please see the file |
|
| 709 |
CICOM/A/2019/00104 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
03-06-2019 |
please see the file |
|
| 710 |
CICOM/A/2019/60082 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
01-06-2019 |
Appellant is aggrieved from the reply of CPIO on Points 2, 3 & 4 of the RTI application. On Points 2 & 3, appellant stated in the appeal that speed post numbers provided by the CPIO are not incorrect. In support of the claim, appellant enclosed a screen shot of postal department website. One speed post is showing delivered to ‘Alipur SO’ and another to ‘Chandigarh SO’ whereas the appellant is the resident of Mumbai (Maharashtra). No notices were received by him.
On Point 4, CPIO states that no videography of hearing is done. Appellant stated that reply of CPIO is incorrect as the hearing is done through video conferencing and requested to provide revised reply on all these points.
On Points 2 & 3, Shri K.L. Das, CPIO & DO to IC(BJ) has been called for who produced a copy of 2nd Appeals submitted by the appellant registered in the Commission vide No.CIC/DOREV/A/2017/179455-BJ and CIC/CCITM/ A/2018/106126-BJ. On perusal of these two 2nd Appeals, it is found that the name of the appellant is Ms Sugandha Gupta and address mentioned as “Ms. Sugandha Gupta, w/o Sh. Lovish Kumar, d/o Sh. S.C. Goyal, C/o House No.1639, Sector 39-B, Chandigarh. As per CPIO, hearing notices were sent at the same address as given in the 2nd appeals. From the above, it is observed that there is no fault on the part of the CPIO and he supplied the correct speed post numbers in his reply. The appellant should have enquired about the hearing notices from the address as given in the 2nd appeals.
On Pont-4, reply furnished by the CPIO is factual as no recording of video-conferencing of hearing is done. |
NA |