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
121 CICOM/A/E/20/00221 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 13-11-2020 On going 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 following information: 1. Grounds available in records based upon which hearing of case no. CIC/CICOM/C/2018/620106 is delayed for hearing as on current date as per section 4.1.b.iv mentioned on CIC website. 2. Name and designation of the official accountable for delaying the hearing as on first come first out basis as per S.no. 1. 3. Date on which the file of case no. CIC/CICOM/C/2018/620106 was received by DR Shri Assija along with list of cases which have been provided out of turn hearing since then. In response to the above RTI Application, the CPIO Shri Ashok Kumar Assija, DR to IC-VN provided following point-wise following information to the Appellant: 1. No such information is available on record. However, the hearing of the case No. CIC/CICOM/C/2018/620106 has already been scheduled for hearing on 23/11/2020. 2. No such information is available on record. 3. The above mentioned case alongwith other cases have been transferred to the registry of IC(VN) in the month of August/Sept, 2020. The Appellant in his First Appeal has said that the “PIO is obstructing information deliberately, knowingly and with mala-fide intentions.” 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 authoritycan be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collect information that is not a part of the record. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO, CIC is factual and per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA
122 CICOM/A/E/20/00218 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-11-2020 On going through the RTI Application, the reply sent by the CPIO and the First Appeal filed by the Appellant it is observed that the Appellant asked for following information: 1. Month wise number of complaints registered and admitted by Information Commissioner (IC) from January 2018 till up to date. 2. Month wise number of complaints disposed of through Hearing and Order Decision by IC from January 2018 till up to date. 3. Month end number of pending complaints with IC from January 2018 till up to date. 4. Month wise average days taken by IC to dispose of complaints from its registration date for the period from January 2018 till up to date. In response to the above RTI Application, the CPIO Shri Devendra Kumar, MR Section, vide his letter dated 15.10.2020, provided point-wise information to the Appellant in respect to point no. 1 to 3 and in respect to point no. 4, the appellant was informed that, “Information will be forwarded to you by the concerned section shortly.” The Appellant in his First Appeal has mentioned that information against point No. 4 has not been provided by the CPIO and has requested to direct the CPIO to provide the desired information against point no. 4. It is observed that CPIO, RTI Cell, Sh. Ram Kumar, vide his letter dated 19.10.2020 has provided information to the Appellant against point No. 4 of the RTI Application, in which the Appellant has been informed that, “With regard to point 4, no such information is maintained.” 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 authoritycan be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or interpret information that is not a part of the record. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO, CIC is factual and per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA
123 CICOM/A/E/20/00217 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-11-2020 On going through the RTI Application, the reply sent by the CPIO and the First Appeal filed by the Appellant it is observed that the Appellant, by giving reference of W.Ps and W.M.Ps No. 11987, 11896,14616, 14615 of 2020, which were filed by the Appellant in Madras High Court, asked for certain information regarding affidavit submitted by the CIC to the court, reason for not filing the affidavit, if not filed, stand of CIC in above matters, copy of note sheet regarding that and other related information against 7 points. In response to the above RTI Application, the CPIO Shri Kishore Kumar Pukhral, Legal Cell, vide his letter dated 27.10.2020 provided following point-wise following information to the Appellant: Point No. 1 to 4: CPIO is not supposed to interpret information or to furnish replies to situational queries or to furnish clarifications. Queries seeking answers and explanations from the CPIO are not covered within the definition of ‘Information’ under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 as held in the Central Information Commission decision No. CIC/NINCL/A/2019/649799 dated 28.09.2020. Point No.5, 6 & 7: The matter is sub-judice, no information can be supplied. 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 authoritycan be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or interpret information that is not a part of the record. Similarly, information, pertaining to sub-judice matter is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO, CIC is factual and per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA
124 CICOM/A/E/20/00216 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 10-11-2020 On going 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 following information: 1. Total number and list of all cases where IC Shri Neeraj Kumar Gupta in his interim decision directed concerned DR to re-fix the hearing. 2. Total number and list of all cases from S.No. 1 where DR has shown non-compliance till current date of RTI along with grounds available in records for showing non-compliance. 3. Copies of all documents which were prepared, executed, issued, and received pertaining to S.No. 2 along with file noting and signature of the officials. In response to the above RTI Application, the CPIO Shri Ashok Kumar Assija, DR to IC-VN provided following point-wise following information to the Appellant: 1. Information in the matter sought by the applicant is not available in the compiled form. 2. –do- 3. The information sought is not specific and it requires interpretation. The Appellant in his First Appeal has said that the “PIO is obstructing information deliberately, knowingly and with mala-fide intentions.” 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 authoritycan be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collect information that is not a part of the record. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO, CIC is factual and per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA
125 CICOM/A/E/20/00212 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-11-2020 On going 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 following information: 1. List of cases registered in 2018 against Central Information Commission which are pending for hearing as on current date of RTI. 2. Grounds available in records based upon which hearing of cases mentioned at S.No. 1 is delayed as per section 4.1.b.iv set by CIC. 3. Name and designation of the official accountable as per S.No.2. In response to the above RTI Application, the CPIO Shri Ashok Kumar Assija, DR to IC-VN provided following point-wise following information to the Appellant: 1. No such list is maintained by the registry. The pending list of the Commission is available on the website of the Commission. i.e. https://dsscic.nic.in/cause-list-report-web/view-pending-cases. 2. 2. No such information is available on record in the registry. 3. 3. No such information is available on record in the registry. The Appellant in his First Appeal has said that the “PIO is obstructing information deliberately, knowingly and with mala-fide intentions.” 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 authoritycan be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collect information that is not a part of the record. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO, CIC is factual and per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA
126 CICOM/A/E/20/00213 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-11-2020 On going 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 following information: 1. List of cases registered in 2017 against Central Information Commission which are pending for hearing as on current date of RTI. 2. Grounds available in records based upon which hearing of cases mentioned at S.No. 1 is delayed as per section 4.1.b.iv set by CIC. 3. Name and designation of the official accountable as per S.No.2. In response to the above RTI Application, the CPIO Shri Ashok Kumar Assija, DR to IC-VN provided following point-wise following information to the Appellant: 1. No such list is maintained by the registry. The pending list of the Commission is available on the website of the Commission. i.e. https://dsscic.nic.in/cause-list-report-web/view-pending-cases. 2. 2. No such information is available on record in the registry. 3. 3. No such information is available on record in the registry. The Appellant in his First Appeal has said that the “PIO is obstructing information deliberately, knowingly and with mala-fide intentions.” 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 authoritycan be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collect information that is not a part of the record. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO, CIC is factual and per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA
127 CICOM/A/E/20/00211 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-11-2020 On going through the RTI Application, the reply sent by the CPIO and the First Appeal filed by the Appellant it is observed that the Appellant, through his RTI Application,by accusing BSF of not selecting him on the medical ground, asked for reason for not hearing his Second Appeal filed against BSF on the basis of Human Right Violation. In response to the above RTI Application, the CPIO, Sh. Ram Kumar, RTI Cell, CIC, vide his letter dated 23.10.2020 informed the Appellant that “Central Information Commission does not have the information. You may approach the concerned authority. Central Information is the Second Appellant Authority for the RTIs filed with Departments/Ministries under Central Government and UTs of India.” 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 authoritycan be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collect information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or decision of CIC. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO, CIC is factual and per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA
128 CICOM/A/E/20/00210 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 05-11-2020 प्रार्थी के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन, सीपीआईओ के जवाब और प्रार्थी द्वारा दाखिल प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने के उपरांत यह स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी ने अपने आर.टी.आई आवेदन के माध्यम से आयोग में कार्यरत्त एक आंकड़ा प्रविष्टि प्रचालक (DEO) को आयोग में भर्ती किये जाने कीअवधि, उनका मासिक वेतन और60 वर्षसे अधिक आयु का होने के वावजूद, उन्हें जिस नियम अथवा आदेश के आधार पर भर्ती किया गया, उसके विवरण की मांग की थी। केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी, श्रीसी.विनोद बाबूने दिनांक 04.11.2020 के पत्र के माध्यम से प्रार्थी को बिन्दुवार सूचना प्रेषित की, जिसमेंसम्बंधित कर्मचारी के मासिक वेतन की सूचना कोसूचना अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा 8(1)(j) के प्रावधानों के अंतर्गत प्रदान करते हुए,हुए शेष सूचना प्रदान कर दी गई थी। प्राप्त जवाब से असंतुष्ट होकर प्रार्थी ने प्रस्तुत प्रथम अपील संस्थित किया है, जिसमें प्रार्थी ने आवेदन के बिंदु संख्या 2 एवं 3 के अंतर्गत प्रदान की गई सूचना कोगलत और असत्य बताया है। यहाँ यह उल्लेख प्रासंगिक होगा कि,सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा 2(च) के प्रावधानों के आलोक में एक जन सूचना अधिकारी, सम्बंधित लोक प्राधिकार के नियंत्रणाधीन और रिकॉर्ड में उपलब्ध और प्रदान किये जाने योग्य सूचना ही प्रदान कर सकता है। अत: आवेदन के बिंदु संख्या 1 तथा 3 के अंतर्गत प्रदान की गई सूचना तथ्यानुरूप और सूचना काअधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप है । जहाँ तक आवेदन के बिंदु संख्या 2 की सूचना, जोप्रश्नगत कर्मचारी के वेतन से सम्बंधित है,तृतीय पक्ष की गोपनीय सूचना है और सूचनाका अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा8(1)(j) केप्रावधानों के अंतर्गत इसे किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को प्रदान नहीं की जा सकती है, विशेषकर उस परिस्थिति में, जबकिइसके प्रकटन में कोई लोकहित निहित नहीं है और न ही प्रार्थी ने इसके समर्थन में कोई विशिष्ट दलील ही प्रस्तुत कियाहै।अत: प्रस्तुत मामले में अधोहस्ताक्षरी के हस्तक्षेप की आवश्यकता नहीं है। NA
129 CICOM/A/E/20/00208 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-11-2020 On going through the RTI Application, the reply sent by the CPIO and the First Appeal filed by the Appellant it is observed that the Appellant, through his RTI Application, asked for following information: 1. “Provide the lunch hours applicable to Information Commissioner, Chief Information Commissioner and other officers/officials of the CIC. 2. Provide the information about listing of second appeals, complaints and non-compliance petitions before the Information Commissioner and/or Chief IC, post lunch hours in the Central Information Commission. 3. Provide the daily record of entry and exit timings of all the official vehicles along with names of the all the officials to whom the vehicles have been allocated from the CIC building (excluding the lock down period). 4. Copy of attendance records of all the officials mentioned at S. No. 3.” The CPIO, CIC, Sh. C. VinodBabu, through his reply dated 21.10.2020, provided following information to the Appellant: 1. “Lunch hours in CIC are between 01.30 P.M. to 02.00 P.M. without any exception. 2. Do not pertain to Admn. Section. Accordingly the RTI Application is transferred to DS (CR) for appropriate disposal direct to the applicant. 3. Do not pertain to Admn. Section. Accordingly the RTI application is transferred to DS (GA) for appropriate disposal direct to the applicant. 4. The information is exempt from sharing under Section 8(1)(j).” The CPIO, CIC, Sh. C. VinodBabu, through his next letter dated 21.10.2020, informed the Appellant that the information against point no. 2, “will be provided by RTI Cell, CIC”. Consequently, Shri Ram Kumar, CPIO (RTI Cell), vide his letter dated 29.10.2020 provided following information against point no.2.: “The details regarding listing of 2nd Appeals and complaints are available on the Commission website cic.gov.in. You may go through dscic.nic.in/causelist-report-web/registry-cause-list/1.” It is also observed that reply against point no. 3 of the RTI Application has been sent to the Appellant by Sh. S. K. Rabbani, Deputy Secretary, (P&B), in which desired information has been denied u/s 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, considering its disclosure dangerous to the security of the individuals. It is observed that the issue raised by the Appellant has already been addressed by the undersigned in First Appeal Order no. CICOM/A/E/20/00193 dated 23.10.2020, which was filed by the Appellant in respect to his above RTI Application. The Appellant has not raised any other specific issue through this First Appeal Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA
130 CICOM/A/P/20/00101 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-11-2020 Please see the file. download pdf