| SNo. |
Registration No |
Appellate Authority Name |
Received date |
Reply Appeal |
Reply Doc |
| 231 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00141 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
19-08-2020 |
The present First Appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the reply furnished by the CPIO Sh. Ram Kumar in respect to the RTI Application dated 19.08.2020 of the Appellant. It is observed that the Appellant has not given any specific ground of his dissatisfaction with the information provided by the CPIO. However, Ongoing through the RTI application and the reply sent by the CPIO, it is observed that the Appellant, through his RTI application, has asked for differences between a Second Appeal and a Complaint under RTI Act, 2005 and has asked for clarification regarding whether the copies of RTI applications, replies received from public authorities are public documents or not.
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 authoritycan be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create the information and he is also not required to interpret information or furnish replies to the hypothetical questions. Whatever the Appellant has asked for is the interpretation of the provisions of RTI Act and hence commenting on that, is beyond the jurisdiction of a PIO. However, the CPIO has advised the Appellant to go through the FAQ, which are available on Commission’s website. Hence, the reply given by the CPIO is factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in this matter. |
NA |
| 232 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00142 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
19-08-2020 |
Ongoing through the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and First Appeal filed by the appellant, it is observed that the appellant, through his RTI application, has asked for the action taken on his complaints filed before Hon’ble Chief Justice, Supreme Court of India and High Court Calcutta.
It is important to note that as per Section 6(1) of RTI Act, 2005, a person, who desires to obtain information under this Act, has to file application to the Central Public Information officer of the concerned public authority, who is the custodian of information. The information, asked for by the Appellant does not pertain to the Central Information Commission. Further, the Central Information Commission is the Second Appellate Authority for the Departments /Ministries under Central Government and Union Territories and receives Complaints and Second Appeals against them only u/s 18 and 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 respectively.
In light of the above, the reply given by the CPIO is factual in nature and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in this matter. |
NA |
| 233 |
CICOM/A/P/20/00063 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
17-08-2020 |
Please see the file. |
 |
| 234 |
CICOM/A/P/20/00060 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
17-08-2020 |
Please see the file. |
|
| 235 |
CICOM/A/P/20/00061 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
17-08-2020 |
Please see the file. |
|
| 236 |
CICOM/A/P/20/00062 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
17-08-2020 |
Please see the file. |
|
| 237 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00139 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
17-08-2020 |
On perusal of the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and First Appeal filed by the Appellant, it is observed that the Appellant, through his RTI application, has asked reason of returning his complaint petition (diary No. 676705/2020). The CPIO, Sh. KrishanAvtarTalwar in his reply has already informed the Appellant the reason for the same. Hence, the information, provided by the CPIO is factual in nature and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in the matter. |
NA |
| 238 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00140 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
17-08-2020 |
Ongoing through the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and First Appeal filed by the appellant, it is observed that the appellant, through his RTI application, has asked for details of the training/orientation programmes organized by the Central Information Commission for newly appointed information Commissioners to make them aware with the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 and the details of such programmes attended by the IC(VN). Together with, certified copies of documents/electronic evidences pertaining to appellant’s eight Second Appeals, which were received by the IC(VN) from the respondent public authority has also been asked for by the Appellant.
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 authoritycan be provided by a PIO. Accordingly, the CPIO, against point Nos. 1 & 2 has informed the appellant that “No such information is available on record.†In response to the query against point No. 3 of the Appellant, the CPIO has already provided the copies of all documents of the cases files in PDF format to the appellant, which is available in record. Hence the reply given by the CPIO is factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in this matter. |
NA |
| 239 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00138 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
16-08-2020 |
On perusal of the Appeal, RTI application and reply of the CPIO, it is observed that the information given by CPIO, Sh. Ashok. Kr. Assija is as per provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, therefore, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in the matter. |
NA |
| 240 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00137 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
15-08-2020 |
On perusal of the Appeal, RTI application and reply of the CPIO, it is observed that the information given by CPIO, Sh. R. P. Grover is as per provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. 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 authoritycan be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create the information and he is also not required to interpret information or furnish replies to the hypothetical questions. Hence, the information, provided by the CPIO is factual in nature. Accordingly, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in the matter. |
NA |