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
151 CICOM/A/E/20/00191 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-10-2020 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 working days of the CIC in a year. 2. In reference to the point no. 1 above, provide the ordinary/general working days of the CIC as are applicable to the following: i. Officers and officials from the lowest rank to the Secretary of the Commission. ii. Information Commissioners. iii. Chief Information Commissioner. 3. List of working days, their corresponding dates and name of the ICs/CIC where no hearing was conducted along with grounds available in records for the same.” The CPIO, CIC, Sh. C. Vinod Babu, through his reply dated 21.10.2020, provided following information to the Appellant: 1. “Except Saturday, Sunday and public holidays notified by DoPT every year, all other days are working days in CIC 2. The Working days as mentioned above are applicable to the entire Commission. 3. No list of working days is prepared. Information regarding ‘no hearing’ on any particular working day does not pertain to Admin Section.” The Appellant in his First Appeal petition, complained that, “The PIO is obstructing all the information deliberately, knowingly and with the malafide intentions to promote corrupt practices.” It is worth mentioning that under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, only such information, as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided by a PIO. Accordingly, the information sent by the CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA
152 CICOM/A/E/20/00192 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-10-2020 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 working hours of the CIC in a year. 2. In reference to the point no. 1 above, provide the ordinary/general working hours of the CIC as are applicable to the following: i. Officers and officials from the lowest rank to the Secretary of the Commission. ii. Information Commissioners. iii. Chief Information Commissioner. 3. Provide the list of the place/location where the information regarding working hours of CIC is displayed. 4. Provide the website link of the CIC where the details of the working hours of the commission are provided. The CPIO, CIC, Sh. C. Vinod Babu, through his reply dated 21.10.2020, provided following information to the Appellant: 1. “Information sought is available on the Commission’s web-site, the link of which is given below: https://cic.gov.in/contact. 2. The working hours mentioned at the web-site are uniformly applicable to all categories of personnel. 3. The relevant Section of the CIC’s web-site for this information is ‘Contact Us’. 4. The link has been given against point number 1 above.” The Appellant in his First Appeal petition, complained that, “The PIO is obstructing all the information deliberately, knowingly and with the malafide intentions to promote corrupt practices.” It is worth mentioning that under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, only such information, as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided by a PIO. Accordingly, the information sent by the CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA
153 CICOM/A/E/20/00193 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-10-2020 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 theCIC 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. The Appellant in his First Appeal petition, has complained that, “The PIO is obstructing all the information deliberately, knowingly and with the malafide intentions.” It is worth mentioning that under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 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. Accordingly, the information against point nos. 1 & 2, sent by the CPIOs, CIC is factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the information against point no. 3 is exempted u/s 8(1)(g) and point no 4 is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 and the Appellant has not given any specific reason as to how the disclosure of this information is in larger public interest.Hence, information against point nos. 3 & 4 cannot be provided to any third party. NA
154 CICOM/A/E/20/00190 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 21-10-2020 On going through the online 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 information regarding time limit for scheduling hearing of Second Appeals filed with the Commission and process/parameters required for urgent hearing. The CPIO, Sh. Krishana Avatar Talwar, Central Registry-I, in respect to point no. 1 of the RTI Application, informed the Appellant that, “No such time limit.” and for the remaining information the Appellant was informed that, “As mentioned under FAQ on web-site of this Commission, Complaints and Second Appeals filed in this Commission under the RTI Act are taken up for hearing in chronological order. However, the Commission in particular matter may decide to accord precedence depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.” It is important to note that the CPIO has provided point-wise information to the Appellant. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in the matter. NA
155 CICOM/A/E/20/00189 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 20-10-2020 On going through the online RTI Application, the reply sent by the CPIO and the First Appeal filed by the Appellant it is observed that the Appellant, by referring a note, through which recommendation was made by the Registry of IC-VN to close the case of non-compliance matter of Second Appeal No. CIC/IIITV/A/2019/657185 of the Appellant, asked for the basis of making such recommendation and relying upon by the Commission, whereas, required information had not been supplied by the concerned CPIO. The CPIO, Sh. A. K. Assija, DR to IC-VN, informed the Appellant that, “The noting dated 15.09.2020 has been made on the basis of documents available on record. The Commission has relied upon the E-book of the case. In this connection, a copy of the E-book of the case has been sent to you on your e-mail.”Aggrieved with the reply, the Appellant has filed this First Appeal stating, “I have through entire 1299 pages of the E-book of the case provided to me as a pdf attachment to email sent to me. I could not find the specific information sought by me in the entire lot of 1299 pages of the E-book.” It is important to note that under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information. In fact, the Appellant is aggrieved with the decision taken by the Commission regarding closing his case of non-compliance and commenting on that is beyond the jurisdiction of a CPIO. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO is factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in the matter. NA
156 CICOM/A/E/20/00187 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-10-2020 On going through the online RTI Application, the reply sent by the CPIO and the First Appeal filed by the Appellant it is observed that the Appellant, by attaching his RTI Application separately, has asked for information from the CPIO, CIC. The CPIO, CIC, RTI Cell, in his reply informed the Appellant that, “please refer to your online RTI application received in Central Information Commission on 06.10.2020. On perusal of your above online RTI request, it has been found that no attachment is attached with the RTI request although you have mentioned in your RTI request as “Please find RTI petition attached”. In absence of the RTI details, your above online request is returned to you.” It is worth mentioning that as per available record, the said RTI application of the Appellant has not been found attached with ‘rti online portal’ and hence the reply sent by the CPIO is based on the facts, available in record and hence it is justified. However, the appellant has attached his RTI Application with his online First Appeal now, through which he has asked for information against 4 points regarding total number of case files pertaining to SPMCIL (Public Authorities) and its units, pending to be transferred to the Registry of IC, Ms. Vanja Sarna, ground for keeping them pending, their list, pending cases of non-compliance with the Registry of IC, Neeraj Gupta etc. In light of the above facts, the CPIO, RTI Cell, is hereby directed to process the RTI Application (copy enclosed) as per the provision of RTI Act. The appellant is free to file his First Appeal, if he feels aggrieved with the reply to be sent by the CPIO in respect to his RTI Application. NA
157 CICOM/A/E/20/00188 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-10-2020 On going through the online 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 the basis of scheduling a particular case for hearing out of turn, list of such cases, which have been scheduled for hearing allegedly violating “suo motu disclosure Section 4(1)(b)(iv) after work allocation dated 26.08.2020 was issued”, name and designation of the officer, responsible for this violation and copies of letters, received by IC-Vanjan N Sarna for “not to discriminate or violation Section 4(1)(b)(iv) against 4 points.” The CPIO, Sh. A. K. Assija, DR to IV-VN, in respect to point nos. 1 to 3, informed the Appellant that “No such information is available on record.” and for point no. 4, the Appellant was informed that, “No such record is maintained in the registry of IC(VN).” Aggrieved with the reply, the Appellant has filed this First Appeal alleging that, “The PIO is obstructing all the information deliberately, knowingly and with the malafide intensions.” It is important to note that under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, only such information, as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided by a PIO. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO is factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in the matter. NA
158 CICOM/A/P/20/00091 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 19-10-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
159 CICOM/A/P/20/00092 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 19-10-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
160 CICOM/A/E/20/00186 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 19-10-2020 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, received in the Commission on transfer from DoP&T, has asked for information regarding “instructions order/OM issued by DoP&T/CIC to the CPIOs not to request applicants, particularly those of the age of 65 years to travel to the offices of CPIOs to inspect documents and obtain information” during the situation of Covid-19 pandemic. The CPIO, CIC, RTI Cell, in his reply informed the Appellant that, “as far as the Commission is concerned, no such information is available.” It is important to note that under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, only such information, as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided by a PIO. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO is factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in the matter. NA