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
1051 CICOM/A/2018/00200 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 27-08-2018 please see the file download pdf
1052 CICOM/A/2018/60131 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 25-08-2018 In the RTI application, appellant has stated that he wants to do the inspection of work of Commissioners at CIC so that he may be able to know how they works. In response to it, CPIO, RTI Cell has responded that “No specific information has been sought as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, you are at the liberty to specify the document or record required for inspection.” In the appeal, appellant has stated that as per Section 2(j)(i) of the RTI Act, 2005, he has the right to inspect the working of the CPIO, RTI Cell. In this regard, Commission’s decision No.CIC/WB/C/2006/00315 dated 15.11.2006 in which it was held that:- “While holding, therefore, that the refusal of information was not malafide, we find that there is in fact no information sought but only inspection presumably u/s 2 (j), which includes inspection of work. This will have to be read with the wording of the Section as a whole, which allows access to information held by or under the control of a public authority. In this case what has been sought is inspection of work to be executed, and not work already completed and therefore capable of being ‘held’ or ‘controlled’. The reference in the section is clearly towards physically accessible work entailing expenses in execution, transparency in inspection of which is in keeping with the principle of accountability. Read with Section 8(1) (j) of the Act, which protects privacy of service files, we find that the action sought is not ‘information’ as defined in the RTI Act, 2005.” In the light of above, request of the appellant u/s 2(j)(i) cannot be acceded to, therefore, there is no infirmity in the reply of the CPIO. NA
1053 CICOM/A/2018/60130 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 25-08-2018 In the RTI application, appellant has stated that he wants to do the inspection of work of CPIO, RTI Cell, CIC so that he may be able to know how CPIO works and how he respond to applicants. In response to it, CPIO, RTI Cell has responded that “No specific information has been sought as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, you are at the liberty to specify the document or record required for inspection.” In the appeal, appellant has stated that as per Section 2(j)(i) of the RTI Act, 2005, he has the right to inspect the working of the CPIO, RTI Cell. In this regard, Commission’s decision No.CIC/WB/C/2006/00315 dated 15.11.2006 in which it was held that:- “While holding, therefore, that the refusal of information was not malafide, we find that there is in fact no information sought but only inspection presumably u/s 2 (j), which includes inspection of work. This will have to be read with the wording of the Section as a whole, which allows access to information held by or under the control of a public authority. In this case what has been sought is inspection of work to be executed, and not work already completed and therefore capable of being ‘held’ or ‘controlled’. The reference in the section is clearly towards physically accessible work entailing expenses in execution, transparency in inspection of which is in keeping with the principle of accountability. Read with Section 8(1) (j) of the Act, which protects privacy of service files, we find that the action sought is not ‘information’ as defined in the RTI Act, 2005.” In the light of above, request of the appellant u/s 2(j)(i) cannot be acceded to, therefore, there is no infirmity in the reply of the CPIO. NA
1054 CICOM/A/2018/60132 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 25-08-2018 In the RTI application, appellant has sought following information:- “1) Name and designation of employees whose spouse works in Central/State govt/PSU (Spouse case) 2) Name and designation of such employees who have applied for transfer on spouse case from 1 Jan 2016 to 30 June 2018. Date on which their application was received and date on which they were transferred to their desired place. 3) Name and designation of employees who were not transferred after receiving application for transfer on spouse case. Please share reason given for not transferring them. 4) Share copy of memo/rule/office order issued by department in favour of spouse transfer.” 2. Shri Sushil Kumar, CPIO & DS(Admn) vide his reply dated 09.08.2018 stated that “No such information is available.” 3. In the appeal, appellant has stated that:- “Please clarify does your reply mean - no employee of CIC have applied for transfer on spouse case.” In this regard, Shri Sushil Kumar, DS(Admn) cum CPIO has been called for who informed that no such request is received from any regular employees of CIC till date. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of. NA
1055 CICOM/A/2018/00199 MEENA BALIMANE SHARMA 23-08-2018 please see the file download pdf
1056 CICOM/A/2018/60129 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 21-08-2018 In the RTI application, appellant has enclosed a copy of reply furnished by the Dy. Director/SPIO of School Education, DSE, Govt. of West Bengal and requested CPIO, CIC to examine the appropriateness of definition of information as represented by the concerned SPIO and also sought guidance on the following queries:- “(1) Has the definition of information, as stated in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act-2005, duly been represented by the concerned SPIO. (2) Is anyway the definition of information misinterpreted or tampered by the concerned SPIO” CPIO, CIC in his online reply dated 21.08.2018 stated that “CPIO, CIC is not competent to comment/advice on the reply given by Deputy Director of School Education & SPIO, West Bengal……….” From the RTI application, it is seen that regarding Point No.1 & 2 certain clarification/interpretation and the rules under RTI Act has been solicited. The RTI Act and Rules are public documents and the appellant is free to draw his own inference/interpretation and take suitable assistance if required from any expert in this regard. The CPIO is not expected to provide any clarification/interpretation/advice/guidance and the Rules and Acts which are enacted by the Government. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the response of the CPIO in this regard. NA
1057 CICOM/A/2018/60128 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 18-08-2018 please see the file download pdf
1058 CICOM/A/2018/00198 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 16-08-2018 please see the file download pdf
1059 CICOM/A/2018/00194 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 14-08-2018 please see the file download pdf
1060 CICOM/A/2018/00195 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 14-08-2018 please see the file download pdf