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
1011 CICOM/A/P/23/00114 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 17-08-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00362 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 25.09.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1012 CICOM/A/E/23/00317 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 17-08-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/23/00063 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that FACTS: I had petitioned Secretary to the President for a Presidential reference to the Supreme Court for inquiry u/s 14(1) of RTI Act into an instance of misbehaviour of an IC. The case was transferred to DOPT on CPGRAMS and closed by CIC JS Shri Rahul Rastogi with the remark: The complaint has been dealt with as per cic policy. My appeal for returning the case to President s Secretariat (and against violation of section 4(1)(b), (c) & (d) of RTI Act in claiming undisclosed action under undisclosed policy) was rejected by undisclosed appellate authority thus: Agreed with the comments of the PG Officer. Hence rejected. On 13/07/23 I applied to DOPT for (1) details of how my case was dealt with and of the cic policy in accordance with which it was dealt with, (2) for Shri Rastogi: copies of orders by which he was (a) made JS, (b) appointed to DOPT / CIC and (c) for CPGRAMS, and (d) information u/s 4(1)(b)(ii) of all his powers and duties and u/s 4(1)(b)(x) of his current monthly remuneration etc, (3) name and designation of the officer who closed my CPGRAMS appeal, and (4) for that officer, information as sought in point no.2. DOPT transferred to CIC as No. CICOM/R/T/23/00063 that Consultant SO (Admin) disposed of on 11/08/23 by uploading text of a forwarding letter mentioning 2 copies. I have received around 5PM on 16/08/23 his decision dated 11/08/23 by speed-post ED528657590IN (booked 14/08/2023 14:47:44). GROUNDS: A) CPIO has said for point no.1: No such information is available. He has obviously not taken assistance u/s 5(4) of Shri Rastogi - or of yourself, named for point no.3 with copy for point no. 4c. B) CPIO has wrongly rejected u/s 8(1)(j) point nos. 2a, b & d (and 4a, b & d). Orders appointing persons to public posts / ranks are not personal to them and information mandated to be published u/s 4(1)(b) is not exempt u/s 8. C) CPIO has wrongly provided for point no. 2c part of a CIC office order and for point no. 4c a CIC office order. CPGRAMS PG officers / GROs are appointed by the Ministry / Department, Nodal appellate authority of which appoints sub-nodal appellate authorities. (Para-2C in DARPG OM, 27/07/22, ATTACHED.) DOPT orders pursuant to which CIC office orders were issued have not been provided. REQUEST: (a) Please provide, as part of your decision on this appeal, the information for point no.1 (i.e., of the action and policy alleged in the comment of Shri Rastogi with which you agreed to reject my CPGRAMS appeal) as well as the information about yourself for point no. 4. (b) Please ask CPIO to take assistance u/s 5(4) from Shri Rastogi to provide the information sought in point no. 2a, b and d and also the DOPT orders on which the CIC office orders provided for point nos. 2c and 4c are based. (c) Please provide signed decision on your official letterhead. 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
1013 CICOM/A/P/23/00112 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 14-08-2023 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/2023/00384 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
1014 CICOM/A/P/23/00113 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 14-08-2023 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/23/00255 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। परन्तु आपने अपनी प्रथम अपील में यह कहा है कि अभी तक कोई सूचना प्राप्त नहीं कराई गई। जबकि केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा पत्र दिनांक 17.08.2023 के द्वारा सूचना भेजी जा चुकी है। केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा दी गई सूचना, दिनांक 17.08.2023 की प्रति, प्रथम अपील के आर्डर के साथ संलग्न की जा रही है I 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
1015 CICOM/A/E/23/00312 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 13-08-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00719/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that Request Appellate to intervene. RTI/Appeal are getting filed with Honble CIC because very areas of inaction are hampering the full output from RTI Act viz to empower citizenry and promote public interest. (1) Replying very belatedly CPIO took action on points g, h, k, l on 27-Jul-23. He issued letters and gave 10 days to both the CPIOs of CIC/IRCTC/A/2020/673429 and CIC/DSWGD/A/2022/650056. 16 days have passed and no reply has been received from either, yet Honble CIC has not taken follow up action by itself on defaulting CPIOs of IRCTC & DSWGD. (2) This CPIO and other Honble CPIO has already attended to points e, f, i, j. (3) No response and no action has been taken by this CPIO on points a, b, c, d. Request Appellate to take note of point 2 and take appropriate action on points 1 & 3. 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. In the instant case, the grounds of appeal mentioned by the appellant in his First Appeal are beyond the purview of the First Appellate Authority, CIC. 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
1016 CICOM/A/E/23/00306 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-08-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00802/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that FACTS: Previously, in request dated 08/06/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00625, I attached a part of CIC disclosure u/s 4(1)(b)(iii) and sought 6 points of information about handling cases. CPIO DR CR-1 gave partial decision. On appeal no. CICOM/A/E/23/00193 CPIO was directed to provide point-wise reply. CPIO gave further response saying that the undecided points pertain to M&R Section and (sub) registries of ICs. I made repeat request no. CICOM/R/E/23/00802 dated 13/07/23 for point nos. 3 to 6. My request was forwarded to 6 CPIOs. On 09/08/23 M&R Section CPIO disposed of No. CICOM/R/E/23/00802/1 for points no. (3) copy of the decision to give case number with identifier C for complaints and identifier A for 2nd Appeal when Complaints and Appeals are not distinguished, e.g., in Notice of Hearing for Appeal/Complaint, (4) date since when the registration information BY EMAIL mentioned in para-9(ii) u/s 4(1)(b)(iii) is limited for complaints only, and (5) for the (singular) CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER mentioned in para-10 u/s 4(1)(b(iii), the queuing system in which cases are queued (in single queue or in multiple queues). CPIO gave the following response: Point No. 3. Information is not available in this office. Point No. 4. The information by email is sent for both complaints and second appeals. Point No. 5. The queuing system is as per registration date of cases. GROUNDS: A. I have not got the copy sought in point no. 3. It is squarely covered u/s 2(f) because the decision to distinguish complaints and appeals in registration number is a CIC decision and part of CIC record that would not have got weeded out because the decision is in force. It is clearly not exempt u/s 8 or 9. That it is inaccessible points to problem u/s 4(1)(a). B. For point nos. 4 & 5 CPIO has not provided information as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i) and has given incorrect / incomplete comment: i) Comment for no. 4 is incorrect. In 2022-23 only diarising is intimated for both. Registration (after scrutiny) is intimated only for complaints. Specimens of system-generated emails that I received for all online complaints (and did not receive for any online 2nd appeal) are ATTACHED. ii) Comment for no. 5 is incomplete. Cases are NOT queued in a single queue. CPIO has disclosed nothing of the multiple IC-wise queues, with cases registered later reaching for hearing by one IC before related cases registered earlier reach for hearing by another IC. (In absence of proper information on this point, I do not know if I have a right to adherence to registration-date order. One IC allowed my request for un-listing, whereas another rejected it with hurtful adverse comments in Decisions.) REQUEST: For point no. 3 please have the decision located in CIC and copy provided to me. For point nos. 4 & 5 please ask CPIO to provide the information, as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i), held in M&R Section. 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
1017 CICOM/A/E/23/00307 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-08-2023 Ref RTI No.-CICOM/R/E/23/00802/3 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that FACTS: Previously, in request dated 08/06/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00625, I attached a part of CIC disclosure u/s 4(1)(b)(iii) and sought 6 points of information about handling cases. CPIO DR CR-1 gave partial decision. On appeal no. CICOM/A/E/23/00193 CPIO was directed to provide point-wise reply. CPIO gave further response saying that the undecided points pertain to M&R Section and (sub) registries of ICs. I made repeat request no. CICOM/R/E/23/00802 dated 13/07/23 for point nos. 3 to 6. My request was forwarded to 5 sub-registries for point no. 6, i.e.: The complete details of the decision-making process (including channels of supervision and accountability) for the exception mentioned in para-10, for PRECEDENCE IN HEARING. Please also provide copies of any few samples of decisions, reached by that decision-making process, to accord precedence in hearing based on MERIT OF THE CASE. DRs to CIC(YS), IC(HS) and IC(SP) have given identical online replies on, respectively, 02, 07 & 10/08/23. DR to IC(SC) has given the same with some addition on 31/07/23. DR to IC(UM) has not given decision. I am filing identical appeals. GROUNDS: A) Complete details of decision-making process have not been provided. Form for that information is spelled out in para-3.3.3 of the guidelines on suo motu disclosure under section 4 of the RTI Act issued vide DOPT OM dated 15/04/2013 & 05/11/2019 No. 1/6/2011-IR. B) It has been said that priority hearings are done on applications/petitions showing justification like old age, urgency of information, etc., but no decision / information as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i) is provided / specified in this regard and: i) approval is variously attributed to the IC (by DR to IC(SC)) and to Chief IC (by all others), and ii) reference is made to FAQ on CIC website for precedence to senior citizens, but no source is cited or example provided for the alleged precedence for urgency of information etc. (DR to IC(SC) has given examples only of priority based on appellant being senior or differently abled and others have given no example). C) It has been said that earlier than turn hearings are also (without application) done by clubbing multiple cases of single appellant, but no enabling decision / information as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i) is provided / specified in this regard. Instead, justification is volunteered by way of reasons including that generally appeals made are similar/same (DR to IC (SP) has said similar/same (subject-wise)) - without disclosing who identifies my (same/similar) cases for clubbing and how when CIC online filing software does not let me flag related cases. REQUEST: Please ask CPIO to provide, for both manners of out-of-turn hearings mentioned by him, the requested complete details of the decision-making process (including channels of supervision and accountability), w.r.t information as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i) that is held in the sub-registry. 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
1018 CICOM/A/E/23/00310 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-08-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00802/4 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that FACTS: Previously, in request dated 08/06/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00625, I attached a part of CIC disclosure u/s 4(1)(b)(iii) and sought 6 points of information about handling cases. CPIO DR CR-1 gave partial decision. On appeal no. CICOM/A/E/23/00193 CPIO was directed to provide point-wise reply. CPIO gave further response saying that the undecided points pertain to M&R Section and (sub) registries of ICs. I made repeat request no. CICOM/R/E/23/00802 dated 13/07/23 for point nos. 3 to 6. My request was forwarded to 5 sub-registries for point no. 6, i.e.: The complete details of the decision-making process (including channels of supervision and accountability) for the exception mentioned in para-10, for PRECEDENCE IN HEARING. Please also provide copies of any few samples of decisions, reached by that decision-making process, to accord precedence in hearing based on MERIT OF THE CASE. DRs to CIC(YS), IC(HS) and IC(SP) have given identical online replies on, respectively, 02, 07 & 10/08/23. DR to IC(SC) has given the same with some addition on 31/07/23. DR to IC(UM) has not given decision. I am filing identical appeals. GROUNDS: A) Complete details of decision-making process have not been provided. Form for that information is spelled out in para-3.3.3 of the guidelines on suo motu disclosure under section 4 of the RTI Act issued vide DOPT OM dated 15/04/2013 & 05/11/2019 No. 1/6/2011-IR. B) It has been said that priority hearings are done on applications/petitions showing justification like old age, urgency of information, etc., but no decision / information as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i) is provided / specified in this regard and: i) approval is variously attributed to the IC (by DR to IC(SC)) and to Chief IC (by all others), and ii) reference is made to FAQ on CIC website for precedence to senior citizens, but no source is cited or example provided for the alleged precedence for urgency of information etc. (DR to IC(SC) has given examples only of priority based on appellant being senior or differently abled and others have given no example). C) It has been said that earlier than turn hearings are also (without application) done by clubbing multiple cases of single appellant, but no enabling decision / information as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i) is provided / specified in this regard. Instead, justification is volunteered by way of reasons including that generally appeals made are similar/same (DR to IC (SP) has said similar/same (subject-wise)) - without disclosing who identifies my (same/similar) cases for clubbing and how when CIC online filing software does not let me flag related cases. REQUEST: Please ask CPIO to provide, for both manners of out-of-turn hearings mentioned by him, the requested complete details of the decision-making process (including channels of supervision and accountability), w.r.t information as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i) that is held in the sub-registry. 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
1019 CICOM/A/E/23/00305 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-08-2023 Ref RTI No.-CICOM/R/E/23/00386 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "Just replied with a single line that NO Data was available Reply also attached" 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
1020 CICOM/A/E/23/00308 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-08-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00802/5 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that FACTS: Previously, in request dated 08/06/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00625, I attached a part of CIC disclosure u/s 4(1)(b)(iii) and sought 6 points of information about handling cases. CPIO DR CR-1 gave partial decision. On appeal no. CICOM/A/E/23/00193 CPIO was directed to provide point-wise reply. CPIO gave further response saying that the undecided points pertain to M&R Section and (sub) registries of ICs. I made repeat request no. CICOM/R/E/23/00802 dated 13/07/23 for point nos. 3 to 6. My request was forwarded to 5 sub-registries for point no. 6, i.e.: The complete details of the decision-making process (including channels of supervision and accountability) for the exception mentioned in para-10, for PRECEDENCE IN HEARING. Please also provide copies of any few samples of decisions, reached by that decision-making process, to accord precedence in hearing based on MERIT OF THE CASE. DRs to CIC(YS), IC(HS) and IC(SP) have given identical online replies on, respectively, 02, 07 & 10/08/23. DR to IC(SC) has given the same with some addition on 31/07/23. DR to IC(UM) has not given decision. I am filing identical appeals. GROUNDS: A) Complete details of decision-making process have not been provided. Form for that information is spelled out in para-3.3.3 of the guidelines on suo motu disclosure under section 4 of the RTI Act issued vide DOPT OM dated 15/04/2013 & 05/11/2019 No. 1/6/2011-IR. B) It has been said that priority hearings are done on applications/petitions showing justification like old age, urgency of information, etc., but no decision / information as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i) is provided / specified in this regard and: i) approval is variously attributed to the IC (by DR to IC(SC)) and to Chief IC (by all others), and ii) reference is made to FAQ on CIC website for precedence to senior citizens, but no source is cited or example provided for the alleged precedence for urgency of information etc. (DR to IC(SC) has given examples only of priority based on appellant being senior or differently abled and others have given no example). C) It has been said that earlier than turn hearings are also (without application) done by clubbing multiple cases of single appellant, but no enabling decision / information as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i) is provided / specified in this regard. Instead, justification is volunteered by way of reasons including that generally appeals made are similar/same (DR to IC (SP) has said similar/same (subject-wise)) - without disclosing who identifies my (same/similar) cases for clubbing and how when CIC online filing software does not let me flag related cases. REQUEST: Please ask CPIO to provide, for both manners of out-of-turn hearings mentioned by him, the requested complete details of the decision-making process (including channels of supervision and accountability), w.r.t information as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i) that is held in the sub-registry. 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