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
971 CICOM/A/2018/60164 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 03-11-2018 In the RTI application, appellant has requested to inform that “employee of Central government/autonomous bodies has right to seek rti. In rti it is necessary to provide motive and reason for saughting rti. Who is custodian for providing information notified for timebound provide of information in rti and penalty imposed for whom CPIO or First appellate authority any judgement in this regard and directive of Court any received by cic. Information is relevant or not is reason soughted.” CPIO, RTI Cell vide letter dated 30.10.2018 has informed that “No other information is available with the CPIO, CIC other than that is available in RTI Act, 2005 & RTI Rules 2012 which are already available in public domain. You may go through the RTI Act, 2005 & RTI Rules 2012.” CPIO, RTI Cell has also provided link to locate RTI Act, 2005 in CIC’s website. In the appeal, appellant has stated that “As a interpretor of rule and apex organization and hope of citizen for protecting the constitutional rights classified under the article……….” In this regard, it is to mention that CIC is not the interpreter of the RTI Act, 2005 and RTI Rules, 2012, therefore, there is no infirmity in the reply of the CPIO. The appellant is advised to go through RTI Act, 2005 and RTI Rules, 2012 and he may also go through the FAQs provided in the CIC’s website https://cic.gov.in/. To explain the above position, the appellant was contacted over his given mobile number but to no avail. NA
972 CICOM/A/2018/00249 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 02-11-2018 please see the file download pdf
973 CICOM/A/2018/00248 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 02-11-2018 please see the file download pdf
974 CICOM/A/2018/60163 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 01-11-2018 In the appeal, appellant has stated that “The RTI application pertains to Indian Overseas Bank. Please confirm that online application is transferred to IOB also for the information sought. Though the signed copy was submitted ONLINE application is to be transferred to Indian Overseas Bank as fees have been paid online.” In this regard, CPIO (RTI Cell), CIC has confirmed that the said RTI application has not been transferred to IOB. On perusal of RTI application, it is observed that some of the points are concerning with Indian Overseas Bank (IOB), therefore, CPIO (RTI Cell) is hereby directed to transfer Points 1 to 11 except Point 4 of the RTI application to the CPIO, IOB within 1 week from the date of receipt of this order. NA
975 CICOM/A/2018/00246 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 31-10-2018 please see the file download pdf
976 CICOM/A/2018/00247 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 31-10-2018 please see the file download pdf
977 CICOM/A/2018/60162 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 31-10-2018 On perusal of the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and appeal, it is to mention that Central Information Commission and State Information Commission are distinct and separate. Hence, no measure was taken to make RTI online for State Information Commissions by the Central Information Commission. The appellant is advised to take up the matter with the concerned State Government/State Information Commission. NA
978 CICOM/A/2018/60160 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 30-10-2018 please see the file download pdf
979 CICOM/A/2018/60161 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 30-10-2018 please see the file download pdf
980 CICOM/A/2018/60159 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 27-10-2018 In the appeal, appellant has enclosed copy of FAA, IIT Madras online decision No.IITMD/A/2018/60027. On perusal of the RTI application and first appeal, it is not understood what information and what relief, appellant wants. To clarify the matter, the appellant was contacted over his given mobile number. He stated that he is not satisfied with the decision of the FAA, IIT Madras and, therefore, filed RTI application and first appeal in the Commission to clear his doubts. The appellant has been explained that Central Information Commission is the Second Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, 2005 in respect of RTI matters involving public authorities under the Central Government or UT’s. He was also informed that if he so desired, he may file 2nd appeal against the decision of the FAA, IIT Madras in the Commission separately. The appellant has no other query and satisfied with the above explanation. NA