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
61 CICOM/A/E/20/00256 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 31-12-2020 I. The Appellant, through his online RTI application No. CICOM/R/E/20/00969 dated 13.11.2020, has asked the following. 1. What are the powers of the Honourable CIC to rectify/correct its wrong order caused by CPIO’s knowingly and deliberately given incorrect and misleading information in the second appeal hearing? 2. What are the powers of the Honourable CIC to punish/penalise the CPIO for knowingly and deliberately giving incorrect and misleading information to the Honourable CIC itself in the second appeal hearing and causing the Honourable CIC to pass a wrong order in the second appeal? II. CPIO Shri Ram Kumar has replied to the Appellant vide letter dated 01.12.2020 as under:- Point 1 : No such power to review its decision is available with CIC/IC. Point 2 : You may refer to Section 18 read with 20 of RTI Act, 2005. III. The Appellant has requested for specific and direct answer to his question-2 in the First Appeal. IV. On perusal of the First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by the CPIO, it is observed that reply given by Shri Ram Kumar, CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA
62 CICOM/A/E/20/00257 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 31-12-2020 I. In response to six questions contained in the RTI application No. CICOM/R/E/20/00911 dated 30.10.2020, answers/information were provided online on 02.12.2020 by Shri R. Sitarama Murthy, CPIO, CIC. The First Appeal is restricted to the answer to Question-6 given by the CPIO, CIC, which are reproduced below. Question-6: Does the CIC have the power to revise/reverse its order to furnish information already passed? (As a lay citizen, I am not able to find it in the RTI Act or Rules, so support and assistance by the CIC CPIO u/s 4 (2) and 5 (3) of the RTI Act 2005 will be greatly helpful and be appreciated) CPIO reply to Question-6: Vide this query, you are seeking answer of the CPIO on the powers of CIC. In this regard, you are advised to go through RTI Act, RTI Rules, law laid down in this regard and also the FAQs available on the website of Central Information Commission. II. The Appellant has requested for specific answer to his question-6 in the First Appeal. III. On perusal of the First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by the CPIO, it is observed that reply given by Shri R. Sitarama Murthy, CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant may peruse FAQs available on the website of the CIC. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. IV. The appeal is being disposed of accordingly. NA
63 CICOM/A/E/20/00255 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-12-2020 1. अपीलकर्ता द्वारा ऑनलाइन आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/20/01019 के माध्यम से निम्नलिखित सूचना मांगी गई थी:- 1. 01 November 2020 से लेकर इस RTI आवेदन का जवाब मिलने तक के दौरान (During prescribed time period) CIC में CIC की चयन समिति (Selection Committee)/ CIC प्रशासन (Administration) द्वारा श्री ए के अरोरा, प्रोटोकॉल ऑफिसर के मातहत (under) कार्यरत Shri Hari Ram, आउटसोर्स DEO (दिल्लीं पुलिस के रिटायर्ड सब-इंस्पेक्टर) को रिटायर्ड कंसलटेंट के पद विशेष (Specific post) के लिए किस आधार (Ground) पर भर्ती (Recruitment)/ Select किया गया । कृपया उपरोक्त वर्णित (Above mentioned) रिटायर्ड कंसलटेंट के पद विशेष के रिक्त पद (Lying Vacant) हेतु चयन (Selection) के मापदंडो (Criteria) का विशेष रूप से उल्लेख (Mention) कीजिए l 2. उक्त आर.टी.आई. आवेदन के प्रतिउत्‍तर में श्री सी. विनोद बाबू, केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा बिन्दुवार निम्न लिखित सूचनाएं उपलब्ध करवाई गई:- 1. मुख्या सूचना आयोग के विज्ञापन के उत्‍तर में श्री हरिराम शर्मा द्वारा दिए गए प्रार्थना पत्र के आधार पर उनकी नियुक्ति् बतौर कंसलटेंट हुई है । आयोग द्वारा कंसलटेंट की भर्ती के लिए दिया गया विज्ञापन आयोग की वेबसाईट पर उपलब्ध है । 3. आर.टी.आई. आवेदन के प्रतिउत्त‍र में प्रदान की गई सूचना से संतुष्ट नहीं होने पर अपीलकर्ता द्वारा प्रथम अपील दाखिल की गई है । 4. आर.टी.आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील आवेदन का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता द्वारा जो सूचना मांगी गई थी, श्री सी. विनोद बाबू, केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रदान कर दी गई है एवं श्री सी. विनोद बाबू द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार ही है, अत: इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है । NA
64 CICOM/A/E/20/00254 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-12-2020 I. The Appellant, through her online RTI application No. CICOM/R/E/20/00998 dated 02.12.2020, with reference to Commission’s decision in the case CIC/BKOBD/A/2018/ 620918, has asked the following information. “CPIO Bank of Baroda was directed to provide complete information in file number CIC/BKOBD/A/2018/620918 on 4.5.20. CPIO provided Incomplete, False and Misleading information on Point 4. Information provided at Point 3 and Point 4 was completely opposite. Either of one of them be correct. Reply at Point 3 stated that as per Bank Rules, firms got dissolved and further operations in its Bank accounts cannot be allowed BUT THEY HAVE TO BE COMPULSORILY CLOSED. Reply at Point 4 stated This was regarded as Case of Reconstitution and Not Dissolution. And Operation in Bank accounts were allowed without closing. Further Submissions made by Bank in response to my Written Submissions stated that since Firm got dissolved, Appellant has right to claim her share from Court. As FALSE INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED AT POINT 4 BY CPIO WITH CLEAR CUT MALAFIDE INTENTION, I HAD RAISED COMPLAINT WITH CIC Thru Link Paper at CIC website. In view of above, Kindly provide me complete information. 1. Rules/Practices/Procedures followed by CIC in dealing with Complaint of appellant for providing him/her FALSE INFORMATION WITH MALAFIDE INTENTION WHEN DIRECTED BY CIC TO PROVIDE COMPLETE TRUTHFUL INFORMATION. 2. DETAILS of actions taken by CIC on my complaint viz seeking Response from Bank on fixing up hearing for Penalising Bank under RTI Act.” II. CPIO Shri R. Sitarama Murthy has replied to the Appellant online on 30.12.2020 as under:- Point 1 : Your kind attention is invited to RTI Act. 2005 and RTI Rules 2012, which are available on the website of Commission i.e. www.cic.gov.in. If there is non-compliance of order of Commission, the RTI 2nd appellant may make a complaint of Non-compliance before the Commission. Point 2 : It is informed that a further hearing in the matter was held on 08-10-2020 and after taking into consideration of submissions of both parties, an order was issued on 19-11-2020, which was dispatched to you also. The same order can be seen on the website of CIC i.e. https://dsscic.nic.in/cause-list-report-web/view-decision-all/1 III. The Appellant in her First Appeal has requested reply to point-2 of RTI application with reference to her online “complaint No. 694246/2020 of 30.11.2020”. IV. On perusal of the First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by the CPIO, it is found that the reply given by the CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. The “complaint” diary number 694246/2020 of 30.11.2020, referred in the First Appeal, is not a part of your RTI application. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. V. The appeal is being disposed of accordingly. NA
65 CICOM/A/P/20/00124 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-12-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
66 CICOM/A/P/20/00126 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-12-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
67 CICOM/A/P/20/00123 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-12-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
68 CICOM/A/P/20/00125 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-12-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
69 CICOM/A/E/20/00253 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-12-2020 I. The Appellant, through his online RTI application No. CICOM/R/E/20/00976 dated 23.11.2020, has asked for the following information:- “(1) Is File No. CIC/UODEL/A/2020/668570 coming under the urgent hearing as the basis of registered second appeal/complaint in CIC? Give me answer only in Yes or No ? (2) If point no. 1 answer is Yes, then give me base/fact/condition and clarification to prove your answer Yes. (3) If point no. 1 answer is No, that give me base/fact/condition and clarification to prove your answer No.” II. CPIO Shri C.A. Joseph has replied to the Appellant vide letter dated 22.12.2020 as under:- “1. No such information exists on the portal of CIC. 2&3. Not applicable.” III. The Appellant in his First Appeal dated 25.12.2020 has mentioned that he has not satisfied with the answer of the CPIO. IV. On verification from the CIC website about the status of the case, it is noticed that the hearing was held on 13.01.2021. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA
70 CICOM/A/E/20/00251 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-12-2020 1. The Appellant, through his online RTI application No. CICOM/R/E/20/01029 dated 12.12.2020, has asked for the following information:- “To receive the applicant’s copy of the inquiry report made by the Central Vigilance Inquiry Officer on the complaint of a violation of government rules made by the central government employee as per the order of the Central Vigilance Commission New Delhi along with the subsection of the rules mentioned in the Right to Information Act 2005 be provided.” 2. CPIO Shri Ram Kumar has replied to the Appellant vide letter dated 22.12.2020:- “Central Information Commission does not have the information. You may approach the concerned Public Authority. Central Information Commission is the second appellate authority for the RTIs filed with Ministries/Departments under Central Government and UTs of India.” 3. The Appellant, in his First Appeal dated 24.12.2020, has mentioned that it was CPIO responsibility to transfer the application to the concerned public authority under Sec.6(3) of the RTI Act 2005. 4. On perusal of the RTI request, reply of the CPIO and the appellant’s contention in the First Appeal, it is noticed that the appellant has not specified the documents/information required by him. Therefore, it would not be possible either to provide appropriate information or forward u/s 6(3) to the concerned public authority. Hence, the reply sent by Shri Ram Kumar, CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. As per 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 authority can be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collect information that is not a part of the record. Accordingly, the First Appeal is disposed of. NA