| SNo. | Registration No | Appellate Authority Name | Received date | Reply Appeal | Reply Doc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1001 | CICOM/A/P/23/00122 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 23-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00347 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “The requested information is not provided within the 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 |
| 1002 | CICOM/A/P/23/00121 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 23-08-2023 | आर. टी. आई. आवेदन, पà¥à¤°à¤¦à¤¾à¤¨ की गई सूचना à¤à¤µà¤‚ पà¥à¤°à¤¥à¤® अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकरà¥à¤¤à¤¾ के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/2022/00679 में सूचना मांगी थी जिसके पà¥à¤°à¤¤à¤¿à¤‰à¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤° में केंदà¥à¤°à¥€à¤¯ जन सूचना अधिकारी दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ पà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤·à¤¿à¤¤ की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤µà¤§à¤¾à¤¨à¥‹à¤‚ à¤à¤µà¤‚ मांगी गई सूचना के अनà¥à¤¸à¤¾à¤° ही है। सकता है। अतः केंदà¥à¤°à¥€à¤¯ जन सूचना अधिकारी दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ पà¥à¤°à¤¦à¤¾à¤¨ की गई सूचना तथà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¤à¥à¤®à¤• है और इसमें पà¥à¤°à¤¥à¤® अपीलीय अधिकारी के हसà¥à¤¤à¤•à¥à¤·à¥‡à¤ª की कोई आवशà¥à¤¯à¤•à¤¤à¤¾ नहीं है। | NA |
| 1003 | CICOM/A/P/23/00117 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 22-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00628 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal being dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO about Section 4(1)(b(x) and also mentioned that the information given is not correct. The appellant has enclosed one pendrive containing data of suo motu disclosure of 24 public authorities. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. The opportunity of written submission, for the first appeal, provided to the appellant is found to be reasonable opportunity of hearing. The written submissions made by the appellant in his first appeal application are found to be sufficient for consideration by the FAA to arrive at a decision under the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, it was felt that the personal hearing as requested by appellant was not necessary. 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 |
| 1004 | CICOM/A/P/23/00116 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 22-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00476 DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. In the instant case, CPIO (DR to IC-UM) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide information as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 26.09.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1005 | CICOM/A/E/23/00318 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 18-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00801 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that Reliefs / Prayers: 1. Order the P.I.O. (incl. Deemed P.I.O(s), if any) to provide the requisite information in detail, instead of generic one-liners for the information sought. If the CIC itself is lackadaisical towards the RTI Act, there’s little hope from the remaining public authorities. 2. Since the time period under the Act has lapsed, It may be ordered by the Ld. FAA that I shall be provided the sought information free of charge as per the Act. 3. The law requires every effort to be made by the P.I.O. to provide information under the RTI Act as state by the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated in its order in Union of India v. Vishwas Bhamburkar [WP(C) 3660/12]: "7. ... whenever information is sought and it is not readily available, a thorough attempt needs to be made to search and locate the information wherever it may be available. ... Even in the case where it is found that the desired information though available in the record of the government at some point in time, cannot be traced despite best efforts made in this regard, the department concerned must necessarily fix the responsibility for the loss of the record and take appropriate departmental action against the officers/officials responsible for loss of the record. ..." 4. Any P.I.O(s) / deemed P.I.O(s) who was party to the process for providing information through sections 5(4) & 5(5) of the RTI Act, or otherwise, may also be made party to the 1st Appeal proceedings. 5. If any portion of the information sought is deemed personal/confidential, then that portion of the information may be redacted, & the rest provided. appeal. As per DoPT letter No. 10/23/2007-IR of 9th July 2007: "3. Deciding appeals under the RTI Act is a quasi-judicial function. It is, therefore, necessary that the appellate authority should see to it that justice is not only done but it should also appear to have been done. In order to do so, the order passed by the appellate authority should be a speaking order giving justification for the decision arrived at." The right to information was found to be a fundamental right under the right to life by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is a cherished right and must be upheld. The Ld. FAA may grant an in-person hearing. I or my authorized representative (Adv. Dhruv Goel) will attend it. The date/time of the hearing may kindly be clubbed with Appeal CICOM/A/E/23/00273. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. The opportunity of written submission, for the first appeal, provided to the appellant is found to be reasonable opportunity of hearing. The written submissions made by the appellant in his first appeal application are found to be sufficient for consideration by the FAA to arrive at a decision under the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, it was felt that the personal hearing as requested by appellant was not necessary. In the instant case, CPIO (DR to IC-UM) is directed to reply to the RTI application and provide information as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 22.09.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1006 | CICOM/A/E/23/00313 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 17-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00774 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that FACTS: I made request dated 09/07/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00774 for 6 points of information related to DISCREPANCIES between, on one hand, notices of hearings and hearings held on 26/04/23 for my case nos. CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/641831 and CIC/DOP&T/C/2022/641830 and, on the other hand, the combined Decision dated 26/06/23 that was uploaded on CIC website on 27/06/23. CPIO DR to IC(SP) gave decision dated 08/08/23 (speed-post ED528662453IN received on 16/08/23). CPIO has provided the information sought in point no.5 only. GROUNDS: A. Point no. 2 has been wrongly rejected u/s 8(1)(e) & (j). I have sought copy of attendance sheet because Sh Pawan Kumar, DOPT CPIO named in my Complaint and present at the hearing, is not named in the Decision. There can be no personal information in the attendance sheet that is not already known to me and whatever fiduciary relation exists to protect whoever is responsible for the discrepancy between the facts of the hearings and the contents of the CIC Decision is neither bonafide nor superior to the duty owed to me of forthright and error-free handling of my cases in the CIC. B. Point nos. 1 & 4 have been wrongly disposed of by issuing copies not requested: (i) For point no.1, the requested copies of 3 applications (u/s 6(1), with identifier E in RTI Online number) that the Decision says I filed have not been provided. Unsolicited copies of 2 transfers (u/s 6(3) with identifier T in RTI Online number) have been issued. (ii) For point no.4, the requested information of date or copy of decision to club the two cases (that were listed apart) and of my objections to clubbing alleged in the Decision have not been provided. The letter issued says that certified copy of my written submission is enclosed but does not even enclose copies of my 2 submissions dated 23/04/22 in the 2 cases that were read out at the hearings (and which response to point no.5 c & d informs were added to the e-files on 24/04/23). It encloses copies of other requests, filed as link papers as per the advice with which the CIC Registrar declined to entertain similar requests in previously listed cases. C. Point nos. 3 & 6 have been refused inexplicably and patently wrongly: (i) For point no.3, the response that no such record exists is inexplicable because if no underlying record exists to explain the discrepancy between CIC Notice of hearing and CIC Decision then either of those is vitiated. (ii) For point no.6, the response that no such record is maintained is inexplicable because if no record / notes of the hearing are maintained then the lengthy narration about the hearing in the Decision issued two months later is contrived. REQUEST: CPIO may please be asked to provide the copy of the attendance sheet for point no.2 and the correct copies for point nos. 1 & 4 and to re-examine the records and decide point nos. 3 & 6 afresh. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. CPIO (DR to IC-SP) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide information as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 22.09.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1007 | CICOM/A/E/23/00314 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 17-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00775 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that FACTS: I made request dated 09/07/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00775 for 5 points of information related to DISCREPANCIES between, on one hand, notice of hearing and hearings held on 26/04/23 for my case no. CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/642602 and, on the other hand, the Decision dated 26/06/23 that was uploaded on CIC website on 27/06/23. CPIO DR to IC(SP) gave decision dated 08/08/23 (speed-post ED528662475IN received on 16/08/23). CPIO has provided the information sought in point no.3 only. GROUNDS: A. Point no.2 has been wrongly disposed of by issuing copies that are not the requested copies of my objections against clubbing / demand for un-listing case No. CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/642602 alleged in the Decision. The letter issued says that certified copy of my written submission is enclosed but does not even enclose copy of my written submission dated 21/04/22 that was read out at the hearing (and which response to point no.3b informs was added to the e-file on 24/04/23). It encloses of other requests, filed as link papers as per the advice with which the CIC Registrar declined to entertain similar requests in previously listed cases. B. Point nos. 1 & 5 have been refused inexplicably and patently wrongly: (i) For point no.1, the response that no such record exists is inexplicable because if no underlying record exists to explain the discrepancy between CIC Notice of hearing and CIC Decision then either of those is vitiated. (ii) For point no.5, the response that no such record is maintained is inexplicable because if no record / notes of the hearing are maintained then the lengthy narration about the hearing in the Decision issued two months later is contrived. C. Part concerning FAA in point no.4 appears to have been wrongly disposed of. The response that no such record exists may hold for the rest of point no.4 but is unlikely for FAA who was not present at hearing and whose order was set aside with adverse remarks. REQUEST: CPIO may please be asked to provide correct copy for point no.2 and to re-examine the records and decide afresh point nos. 1 & 5 and part concerning FAA in point no.4. 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 |
| 1008 | CICOM/A/E/23/00315 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 17-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00776 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that FACTS: I made request dated 09/07/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00776 for 5 points of information related to DISCREPANCIES between, on one hand, notice of hearing and hearings held on 26/04/23 for my case no. CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/642604 and, on the other hand, the Decision dated 26/06/23 that was uploaded on CIC website on 27/06/23. CPIO DR to IC(SP) gave decision dated 08/08/23 (speed-post ED528662467IN received on 16/08/23). CPIO has provided the information sought in point no.3 only. GROUNDS: A. Point no.2 has been wrongly disposed of by issuing copies that are not the requested copies (of my objections against clubbing / demand for un-listing case No. CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/642604 alleged in the Decision). The letter issued says that certified copy of my written submission is enclosed but does not even enclose copy of my written submission dated 21/04/22 that was read out at the hearing (and which response to point no.3b informs was added to the e-file on 24/04/23). It encloses of other requests, filed as link papers as per the advice with which the CIC Registrar declined to entertain similar requests in previously listed cases. B. Point nos. 1 & 5 have been refused inexplicably and patently wrongly: (i) For point no.1, the response that no such record exists is inexplicable because if no underlying record exists to explain the discrepancy between CIC Notice of hearing and CIC Decision then either of those is vitiated. (ii) For point no.5, the response that no such record is maintained is inexplicable because if no record / notes of the hearing are maintained then the lengthy narration about the hearing in the Decision issued two months later is vitiated. C. Point no.4 appears to have been wrongly disposed of. Without calling evidences from NIC and DOPT the Commission would not have given Decision contradicting the decisions of NIC FAA and DOPT FAA in the matter. REQUEST: CPIO may please be asked to provide correct copy for point no.2 and to re-examine the records and decide point nos. 1, 4 & 5 afresh. 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 |
| 1009 | CICOM/A/E/23/00316 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 17-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00777 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that FACTS: I made request dated 09/07/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00777 for 5 points of information related to DISCREPANCIES between, on one hand, notice of hearing at 12:55 PM and (incomplete) hearing held on 26/04/23 for my case no. CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/644307 and, on the other hand, Decision dated 26/06/23 in which the case was combined with the case no. CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/642167 that was scheduled 3 cases away at 12:35 PM and for which I had yielded the hearing slot to third parties. CPIO DR to IC(SP) gave decision dated 08/08/23. GROUNDS: A. Point no.2 has been wrongly disposed of by issuing copies that are not the requested copies (of my objections against clubbing / demand for un-listing case No. CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/644307 alleged in the Decision). The letter issued says certified copy of my written submission is enclosed but encloses, besides copy of my written submission dated 21/04/22 (start of which was read out at the hearing), also other requests (filed as link papers as per the advice with which the CIC Registrar declined to entertain similar requests in previously listed cases). In none of the papers enclosed is there any demand to un-list case No. CIC/DOP&T/A/2022/644307 or objection against its clubbing not reflected in the Notices. B. Point nos. 1 & 5 have been refused inexplicably and patently wrongly: (i) For point no.1, the response that no such record exists is inexplicable because if no underlying record exists to explain the discrepancy between CIC Notice of hearing and CIC Decision then either of those is vitiated. (ii) For point no.5, the response that no such record is maintained is inexplicable because if no record / notes of the hearing are maintained then the lengthy narration about the hearing in the Decision issued two months later is contrived. C. Point nos. 3 & 4 have been disposed of by saying that the information is not available on records / no such record exists. That may well be, but the response to points no. 1 & 5 suggests equal possibility that all relevant records have not been consulted. REQUEST: CPIO may please be asked to provide correct copy for point no.2 and to re-examine the records and decide point nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5 afresh. 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 |
| 1010 | CICOM/A/P/23/00115 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 17-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00686 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “I am to invite your kind attention towards the RTI application dated 19.12.2022 submitted to PIO CIC New Delhi and to say that the requisite information has not provided by the PIO within the time period, It is deem to be refused. Further it is say that the information provided by vide CICOM/R/P22/00686 dt 24.07.2023 is misleading You are requested to take action under RTI Act and provide the information please†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. 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 |