| SNo. |
Registration No |
Appellate Authority Name |
Received date |
Reply Appeal |
Reply Doc |
| 1211 |
CICOM/A/2018/00110 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
07-05-2018 |
please see the file |
 |
| 1212 |
CICOM/A/2018/60056 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
03-05-2018 |
On Point 1 of the RTI application, it is to mention that CPIO has produced a CIC Circular No.CIC/4/2016-Rgr. dated 21.09.2017 (attached herewith), which is self explanatory. As far as Points 1 & 2 and the reply of the CPIO are concerned, it appears that the CPIO has acted in good faith but he has exceeded to his authority.
As far as request regarding “…….. add my request for compensation in my complaint CIC/BKOIN/C/2018/613655 dated 08/03/2018 which has already been admitted…..†is concerned, the appellant can add his request through online portal of CIC for filing 2nd Appeal/Complaint. For the purpose he may go through the link http://dsscic.nic.in/online-link-paper-compliance/add and add additional documents. |
NA |
| 1213 |
CICOM/A/2018/60055 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
01-05-2018 |
In the RTI application, appellant has sought documents related to decision taken on his petition dated 05.03.2018 (Dy. No.115006 dt. 05.03.2018) addressed to Shri R.K. Mathur, Chief IC and if no decision taken, sought reasons thereof. Shri H.P. Sen, DO to IC(DP) & CPIO vide reply dated 01.05.2018 stated that “…… this Registry has not taken any action on the letter addressed to the Hon’ble CIC, Shri R.K. Mathur on 05.03.2018. Therefore, no document in the matter could be provided to you.â€
In the appeal, appellant has stated that CPIO did not provide the reasons for inaction, which was also part of request. Hence CPIO has given incomplete information. In this regard, Shri H.P. Sen, CPIO has been called for who informed that no such reason is available on record. Furthermore, DoPT OM No.1/7/2009-IR dated 20th May, 2011 may be referred to vide which extract of decision dt. 03.04.2008 of the High Court of Bombay at Goa in WP No.419 of 2007 was circulated, which states that:-
“The definition of information cannot include within its fold answers to the question “why†which would be same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The public information authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information.â€
In view of the above, the reply of CPIO is found appropriate and factual. |
NA |
| 1214 |
CICOM/A/2018/60054 |
R K SINGH |
28-04-2018 |
On perusal of the RTI application, it is observed that it was transferred by DoPT to its concerned CPIO of DoPT, CIC and M/o Labour & Employment vide No.DOP&T/R/2018/51754 dated 23.04.2018. In the RTI application, appellant has sought action taken by DoPT |
NA |
| 1215 |
CICOM/A/2018/00099 |
R K SINGH |
27-04-2018 |
please see the file |
|
| 1216 |
CICOM/A/2018/00098 |
R K SINGH |
27-04-2018 |
please see the file |
|
| 1217 |
CICOM/A/2018/00097 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
27-04-2018 |
please see the file |
|
| 1218 |
CICOM/A/2018/00096 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
24-04-2018 |
please see the file |
|
| 1219 |
CICOM/A/2018/60053 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
24-04-2018 |
On perusal of the RTI application, reply of the CPIO and appeal, it is observed that CPIO has provided factual and appropriate information to the appellant, therefore, no intervention is required on the part of the FAA. |
NA |
| 1220 |
CICOM/A/2018/00095 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
23-04-2018 |
please see the file |
|