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
981 CICOM/A/2018/60158 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 26-10-2018 On perusal of the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and submissions made in the appeal, it is observed that factual information has been provided by the CPIO, therefore, no further intervention is required on the part of the FAA. NA
982 CICOM/A/2018/00245 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 25-10-2018 please see the file download pdf
983 CICOM/A/2018/00244 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 25-10-2018 please see the file download pdf
984 CICOM/A/2018/60155 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 25-10-2018 In connection with DoPT OM No.1/6/2011-IR dated 10.12.2013 regarding implementation of suo-motu disclosure u/s 4 of RTI Act, 2005, appellant has sought following information:- “1. PLEASE INFORM WHETHER CIC RECEIVED THE COMPLIANCE REPORT COPY OF SOME PUBLIC AUTHORITIES WHO REPORTED COMPLIANCE ON AOB TOB PROCEDURE AS CONFIRMED BY DOPT IN THE OM ATTACHED. 2. PLEASE INFORM WHETHER ANY INSTRUCTION IS ISSUED TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES BY DOPT OR CIC STATING THAT NON ADHERENCE TO AOB TOB PROCEDURE EXPOSE HON. PRESIDENT TO THE RISK OF BEING IMPEACHED ATTRACTING IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT AND GOVERNOR PRO TEMPORE AS AOB TOB PROCEDURE COMPILED BY COUNCIL OF MINISTERS IS TO ENSURE OATH OF EXECUTIVE HEADS TO PRESRVE PROTECT AND DEFEND CONSTITUTION AND LAW AND LAW AND THEREFORE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING AS COMMANDED IN SECTION 20 OF RTI ACT IS A PENALTY EQUIVALANET TO IMPEACHMENT.” Shri S.P. Beck, JS(Admn) vide letter dated 17.10.2018 replied u/s 5(4) that “1 & 2 No information is available.” At the last para of the appeal, appellant has stated that:- “HENCE THIS RTI APPLICATION SHALL BE TREATED AS A COMPLAINT AGAINST ALL PUBLIC AUTHORITIES WHO FAILED TO REPORT COMPLIANCE AND ALSO FOR CONDUCTING THIRD PARTY AUDIT AS INFORMED BY CAG. SINCE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AS REPORTED BY CPIO CIC FAILED TO ADHEE TO INSTRUCTION OF DOPT. AND ALSO ISSUE A CIRCULAR REMINDING ON THE PROVISION OF SECTION 20 REGARDING PENALTY FOR REFUSAL OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION.” On perusal of the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and submissions made in the appeal, it is observed that the appellant is not aggrieved with the reply of CPIO but he is aggrieved with non-compliance of DoPT aforementioned OM by the public authorities. In the appeal, appellant himself stated to treat his RTI application as complaint against all public authorities who failed to report compliance. The FAA is confined to the information sought u/s 6 and information furnished u/s 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant may file complaint at appropriate forum, if he so desires. However, as far as RTI reply is concerned, it is found appropriate and factual. NA
985 CICOM/A/2018/60157 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 25-10-2018 In the RTI application, appellant has sought 8 points information in respect of case file No.CIC/NCFWO/A/2018/138331. Information on Points 1 to 5 has been furnished by Shri Krishan Avtar Talwar, DS & CPIO (CR-I) and information on Points 6 to 8 furnished by Shri T.K. Mohapatra, CPIO & DR to IC(SA). Appellant has filed online appeal No.CICOM/A/2018/60156 against the reply of Shri T.K. Mohapatra, CPIO & DR to IC(SA) and appeal No. CICOM/A/2018/60157 against the reply of Shri Krishan Avtar Talwar, DS & CPIO (CR-I). Since both appeals are filed against the reply of same RTI application, both appeals are clubbed with. On perusal of the RTI application, reply of the CPIOs and submissions made in the appeal, it is observed that appropriate and factual information has been furnished by both the CPIOs, therefore, no further intervention is required on the part of the FAA, in the matter. It is further stated that all decisions of the Commission are available on the CIC’s website that can be browsed and there is no provision of review of decision of the Commission under the RTI Act. NA
986 CICOM/A/2018/60156 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 25-10-2018 In the RTI application, appellant has sought 8 points information in respect of case file No.CIC/NCFWO/A/2018/138331. Information on Points 1 to 5 has been furnished by Shri Krishan Avtar Talwar, DS & CPIO (CR-I) and information on Points 6 to 8 furnished by Shri T.K. Mohapatra, CPIO & DR to IC(SA). Appellant has filed online appeal No.CICOM/A/2018/60156 against the reply of Shri T.K. Mohapatra, CPIO & DR to IC(SA) and appeal No. CICOM/A/2018/60157 against the reply of Shri Krishan Avtar Talwar, DS & CPIO (CR-I). Since both appeals are filed against the reply of same RTI application, both appeals are clubbed with. On perusal of the RTI application, reply of the CPIOs and submissions made in the appeal, it is observed that appropriate and factual information has been furnished by both the CPIOs, therefore, no further intervention is required on the part of the FAA, in the matter. It is further stated that all decisions of the Commission are available on the CIC’s website that can be browsed and there is no provision of review of decision of the Commission under the RTI Act. NA
987 CICOM/A/2018/00242 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 24-10-2018 please see the file download pdf
988 CICOM/A/2018/00243 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 24-10-2018 please see the file download pdf
989 CICOM/A/2018/00241 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 24-10-2018 please see the file download pdf
990 CICOM/A/2018/00240 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 22-10-2018 please see the file download pdf