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
991 CICOM/A/E/23/00324 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 26-08-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00926 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that HONOURABLE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER SIR , UNDER THE MATHEMATICAL DOMAIN OF THE HUMANITY, PLEASE PROVIDE ME THE ANSWERS OF THE TWO ( 2 ) QUESTIONS MENTIONED IN THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENT. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. As per Section 2(f) of the 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 collate information that is not a part of the record. Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act,2005. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
992 CICOM/A/E/23/00327 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 26-08-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00897 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that CONTEXT: Heading 3.3 of CIC Annual Report is: Imposition and Realization of Penalty by CIC during Reporting Year. That penalty is realized by CIC is obvious from the difference between the figures reported in para-3.3.1 (amount received) and as Grand Total on last page of Abstract of online Annual Returns in Annexure-1 (Penalty collected): e.g., in AR for 2021-22 amount reported received by CIC is Rs 495700 (para-3.3.1 on p.22) and amount reported collected by PAs is Rs. 228340 (Grand Toral at S. No. 12 on p.179). No details are found on CIC website about current process for realization of Penalty by CIC. An earlier process is indicated in CIC Decision dated 17.01.2018 in F. No. CIC/POSTS/A/2016/299355 for realization of penalty amount of Rs. 25000: ... by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of PAO CAT New Delhi in 5 equal monthly instalments. The first instalment should reach the Commission by 19.03.2018 and the last instalment should reach by 19.07.2018. The Demand Draft should be sent to Shri S. P. Beck, Joint Secretary & Addl. Registrar, Room No. 505, ... FACTS: I made request dated 04/08/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00897 for (1) Dates on which the 5 Demand Drafts were received by Joint Secretary & Addl. Registrar (F. No. CIC/POSTS/A/2016/299355), (2) copies of orders / instructions related to the penalty amounts received in CIC, and (3) List of cases / PAs from which receipt of penalty amount of Rs. 4,95,700 is reported in para-3.3.1 of AR for 2021-22. CPIO & I/s Dak Section gave decision dated 25/08/23 saying, for point no.1 & 2, that no penalty was received by the CIC against File No. CIC/POSTS/A/2016/299355 and, for point no. 3, that the information is not maintained in the form desired. GROUNDS: A) Point no.1 has been disposed of by Dak Section CPIO without stating that assistance has been taken u/s 5(4) from (successor) office of Addl. Registrar to whom the Demand Drafts were specifically ordered to be sent to. The information that no penalty was received seems wrong because it contradicts the CIC order. B) Point no.2 has been wrongly combined with point no.1, as I have sought the orders / instructions in general (not about the F. No. CIC/POSTS/A/2016/299355 for which the instructions are part of Decision attached with my request). C) Point no.3 has been wrongly disposed of in Dak Section. Details / break-up of the total figure of Rs. 4,95,700 reported in para-3.3.1 of CIC Annual Report would be held in office keeping account of the penalty amounts received by CIC (and whatever the form in which account is kept, it is likely to include listing of PA and case F. No.). REQUEST: I request point-wise decision based on records of CIC office that keeps account of the penalty amounts received in CIC. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. In the instant case, CPIO (CR II) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide information as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 03.10.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
993 CICOM/A/E/23/00319 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-08-2023 ऑनलाइन आर. टी. आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन CICOM/R/T/23/00069 के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रेषित की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों एवं मांगी गई सूचना के अनुसार ही है। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना तथ्यात्मक है और इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है। NA
994 CICOM/A/E/23/00320 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-08-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00842 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that In points 2 and 3 of my RTI application I had sought the following information- (Quote) 2. Please provide a copy of any record of discussions held or decisions taken by the information commission regarding live streaming of hearings/ proceedings of the information commission. 3. Please provide the exact web address where the live streaming of hearings/ proceedings of the information commission is available, if any.(Quote) Vide amended reply dated 4-8-2023, the PIO of M&R has stated (Quote) Information is not available in this office (Unquote). I am not satisfied by the response as I had sought information regarding the CIC and not regarding the M&R section within the CIC. Therefore, the response that information sought is not available in this office does not address the point on which I had sought information. PIO should either indicate that no information in this regard is held by the CIC or should take assistance of the appropriate officer as laid down in section 5(4) of the RTI Act to provide the requisite information. Response is uploaded in supporting document. I urge the FAA to ensure that information as sought in my application is provided without any further delay. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. As per Section 2(f) of the 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 collate information that is not a part of the record. Further, the matter regarding live streaming of hearings/ proceedings of the information commission is not under consideration in the Commission as of now. Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act,2005. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
995 CICOM/A/E/23/00321 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-08-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00843 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that The information sought is routine information related to the functioning of the Central Information Commission and it is a reasonable expectation that the Commission would be maintaining information about the number of show cause notices issued, number of Appeals/Complaints where disciplinary action has been recommended, details of compensation awarded. In any case under Section 25 of the RTI Act, every Information Commission is required to prepare a report every year giving inter-alia the particulars of any disciplinary action taken against any officer in respect of the administration of this Act. This implies that the CIC is statutorily required to in any case maintain and compile information about penalties imposed and disciplinary action recommended. Therefore, since it is a statutory requirement to maintain this information, the PIO cannot cite absence of a written document containing the same or claim that since this would require collection/collation, it is not information under the RTI Act. Further in terms of the claim that information sought is not maintained in the form as desired by the appellant, it is submitted that the PIO may provide the information in whichever format it is maintained for the period under review (for instance if it is maintained on a monthly basis). Therefore, kindly ensure that the PIO furnishes complete information as requested in the original application DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. As per Section 2(f) of the 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 collate information that is not a part of the record. Further the information pertaining to show cause notices is available on the CIC website. Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act,2005. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
996 CICOM/A/E/23/00322 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-08-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00845 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that In point 1 of my RTI application I had sought the following information- (Quote) 1. Please provide a copy of the relevant resolution/rule/order/circular/office memorandum/document/record etc. regarding any norm adopted by the commission on the number of appeals/complaints each commissioner/ bench must dispose in one year.(Unquote) I have received two replies from the CIC. The first one from M&R section - O P GUPTA states - Point No 1 does not pertain to M&R Section. The second one purportedly from (ADMIN SECTION) - Devender Kumar carries no letterhead, date, reference number, or signature and simply states No such information is available. It is shocking to note the manner in which RTI applications are being dealt with by the CIC. The reply carries no details in terms of any letterhead, date, reference number, or signature. I had sought information regarding the CIC and not regarding the M&R section within the CIC. Therefore, the response that information sought does not pertain to M&R Section does not address the point on which I had sought information. PIO should either indicate that no information in this regard is held by the CIC or should take assistance of the appropriate officers as laid down in section 5(4) of the RTI Act to provide the requisite information. Response is uploaded in supporting document. I urge the FAA to ensure that information as sought in my application is provided without any further delay. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. As per Section 2(f) of the 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 collate information that is not a part of the record.There is no information available regarding any norm adopted by the commission on the number of appeals/complaints each commissioner/ bench must dispose in one year. Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO is as per the provisions of the RTI Act,2005. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
997 CICOM/A/P/23/00123 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-08-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00316 DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. As per Section 2(f) of the 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 collate information that is not a part of the record. In the instant case, the CPIO transferred the RTI application for Point No. 2 to 10 to Office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), RTI Cell, Mumbai. Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
998 CICOM/A/P/23/00118 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-08-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00348 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Not giving the requested information within stipulated period.” DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. As per Section 2(f) of the 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 collate information that is not a part of the record. In the instant case, the CPIO(Admin Section) replied to the RTI application on 02.08.2023, but sent the RTI reply to wrong address. Notwithstanding the above, CPIO Admin Section is directed to send the RTI reply to the appellant’s correct address as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 25.09.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
999 CICOM/A/P/23/00119 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-08-2023 आर. टी. आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/2023/00377 में सूचना मांगी थी जिसके प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रेषित की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों एवं मांगी गई सूचना के अनुसार ही है। आपके द्वारा मांगी गई सूचना, केंद्रीय सूचना आयोग से संबंधित नहीं है। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना तथ्यात्मक है और इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है। NA
1000 CICOM/A/P/23/00120 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-08-2023 आर. टी. आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/2023/00075 में सूचना मांगी थी जिसके प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रेषित की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों एवं मांगी गई सूचना के अनुसार ही है। सकता है। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना तथ्यात्मक है और इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है। NA