| SNo. | Registration No | Appellate Authority Name | Received date | Reply Appeal | Reply Doc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1021 | CICOM/A/E/23/00309 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 12-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00802/2 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 |
| 1022 | CICOM/A/E/23/00303 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 12-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00794 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that CONTEXT: In 2022-23 I have so far received 30 CIC notices of hearings for my cases. 9 allowed third parties hearing opportunity only on-phone. 14 impleaded additional public authorities. Reasons were not provided for the particular cases. On CIC website I found reference to third parties only in Minutes of Meeting held on 05.09.2017 (approval of format for notice of hearing) and to multiple PAs only in Minutes of Meeting held on 05.06.2018 (discussed). Notice format does not show either on-phone hearing or multiple PAs and was circulated to sub-registries by the Registrar vide order No. CIC/4/2016-Regr. dated 21.09.2017. (Copy provided in RTI process is ATTACHED.) FACTS: I made request dated 12/07/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00794 to CPIO in o/o Registrar for copies of all orders / instructions related to (1) the mandate u/s 19(4) to give third-party reasonable opportunity to be heard, and (2) the issuing of notice of hearing also to CPIO/s of PAs other than the one in respect of which Complaint or Appeal has been filed. My request was disposed of in sub-registries - 5 times, all wrongly. DRs to IC(SC), CIC(YS), IC(HS) and IC(SP) furnished substantively identical online replies dated, respectively, 27/07/23, 02/08/23, 03/08/23 and 10/08/23. I am filing identical appeals. GROUNDS: CPIO has wrongly disposed of u/s 7(1) without providing either information as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i) or any reason from u/s 8 or 9 and by issuing, instead, online reply bearing no relation to my request and/or to RTI Act. Specifically: i) Orders/instructions issued sought from o/o Registrar would have been RECEIVED (and held) in sub-registries. CPIO has needlessly opined that sub-registries do not issue circulars/guidelines. ii) CPIO has made irrelevant mention of availability on CIC website of RTI Act, RTI Rules, Case Law and guidelines/circulars. I have not asked for copies of those. Orders/instructions related to notice of hearing (including the approved format and order by which it was circulated that are ATTACHED) are NOT available on CIC website. iii) CPIO has wrongly said information is exempted u/s 7(9). Exemptions are specified u/s 8 and 9. Section 7(9) entitles me to information in the form requested, with 2 exceptions that cannot apply because order/instructions are covered u/s 4(1)(b)(v) and are to be easily accessible u/s 4(4) with CPIO. REQUEST: Please ask CPIO to provide - from the information, as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i), held in the sub-registry - either the requested copies or reason/s from u/s 8 or 9 for not providing them. 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 |
| 1023 | CICOM/A/E/23/00298 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 12-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00793/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that CONTEXT: I approached this Commission many times till 2010. I approached it again in 2022. I have so far received 30 notices of hearings for my cases. I have been provided in RTI process the approved format for notice circulated for compliance by order No. CIC/4/2016-Regr dated 21.09.2017 (copy ATTACHED). Approved format does not reflect the procedure u/r 11 of RTI Rules 2012 in r/o officers other than CPIO and, unlike Notices till 2010 (that were issued to CPIO and FAA for comment on my Appeal or Complaint, with subsequent rejoinder option to me), allows concurrent WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS up to same deadline, variably fixed. I have not found on CIC website information related to rule 11 or meaning and purpose of concurrent WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. FACTS: I made request dated 12/07/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00793 to CPIO in o/o Registrar for copies of (1) orders/ circulars/ instructions related to clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) & (vi) of rule 11 of RTI Rules, (2) orders/ instructions related to fixing deadline for the WRITTEN SUBMISSION allowed by Notice of hearing, and (3) any document that defines/ clarifies meaning and purpose of the said WRITTEN SUBMISSION. My request was forwarded to 5 sub-registries. DR to IC(UM) has not given decision. DRs to IC(SC), CIC(YS), IC(HS) and IC(SP) furnished substantively identical online replies dated, respectively, 27/07/23, 02/08/23, 03/08/23 and 10/08/23. I am filing identical appeals. GROUNDS: CPIO has wrongly disposed of u/s 7(1) without providing either information as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i) or any reason from u/s 8 or 9 and by issuing, instead, online reply bearing no relation to my request and/or to RTI Act. Specifically: i) Orders/instructions issued sought from o/o Registrar would have been RECEIVED (and held) in sub-registries. CPIO has needlessly opined that sub-registries do not issue circulars/guidelines. ii) CPIO has made irrelevant mention of availability on CIC website of RTI Act, RTI Rules, Case Law and guidelines/circulars. I have not asked for copies of those. Orders/instructions related to notice of hearing (including the approved format and order by which it was circulated that are ATTACHED) are NOT available on CIC website. iii) CPIO has wrongly said information is exempted u/s 7(9). Exemptions are specified u/s 8 and 9. Section 7(9) entitles me to information in the form requested, with 2 exceptions that cannot apply because orders/instructions are covered u/s 4(1)(b)(v) and are to be easily accessible u/s 4(4) with CPIO. REQUEST: Please ask CPIO to provide - from the information, as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i), held in the sub-registry - either the requested copies or reason/s from u/s 8 or 9 for not providing them. 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 |
| 1024 | CICOM/A/E/23/00296 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 12-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00793/2 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that CONTEXT: I approached this Commission many times till 2010. I approached it again in 2022. I have so far received 30 notices of hearings for my cases. I have been provided in RTI process the approved format for notice circulated for compliance by order No. CIC/4/2016-Regr dated 21.09.2017 (copy ATTACHED). Approved format does not reflect the procedure u/r 11 of RTI Rules 2012 in r/o officers other than CPIO and, unlike Notices till 2010 (that were issued to CPIO and FAA for comment on my Appeal or Complaint, with subsequent rejoinder option to me), allows concurrent WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS up to same deadline, variably fixed. I have not found on CIC website information related to rule 11 or meaning and purpose of concurrent WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. FACTS: I made request dated 12/07/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00793 to CPIO in o/o Registrar for copies of (1) orders/ circulars/ instructions related to clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) & (vi) of rule 11 of RTI Rules, (2) orders/ instructions related to fixing deadline for the WRITTEN SUBMISSION allowed by Notice of hearing, and (3) any document that defines/ clarifies meaning and purpose of the said WRITTEN SUBMISSION. My request was forwarded to 5 sub-registries. DR to IC(UM) has not given decision. DRs to IC(SC), CIC(YS), IC(HS) and IC(SP) furnished substantively identical online replies dated, respectively, 27/07/23, 02/08/23, 03/08/23 and 10/08/23. I am filing identical appeals. GROUNDS: CPIO has wrongly disposed of u/s 7(1) without providing either information as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i) or any reason from u/s 8 or 9 and by issuing, instead, online reply bearing no relation to my request and/or to RTI Act. Specifically: i) Orders/instructions issued sought from o/o Registrar would have been RECEIVED (and held) in sub-registries. CPIO has needlessly opined that sub-registries do not issue circulars/guidelines. ii) CPIO has made irrelevant mention of availability on CIC website of RTI Act, RTI Rules, Case Law and guidelines/circulars. I have not asked for copies of those. Orders/instructions related to notice of hearing (including the approved format and order by which it was circulated that are ATTACHED) are NOT available on CIC website. iii) CPIO has wrongly said information is exempted u/s 7(9). Exemptions are specified u/s 8 and 9. Section 7(9) entitles me to information in the form requested, with 2 exceptions that cannot apply because orders/instructions are covered u/s 4(1)(b)(v) and are to be easily accessible u/s 4(4) with CPIO. REQUEST: Please ask CPIO to provide - from the information, as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i), held in the sub-registry - either the requested copies or reason/s from u/s 8 or 9 for not providing them. 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 |
| 1025 | CICOM/A/E/23/00297 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 12-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00793/4 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that CONTEXT: I approached this Commission many times till 2010. I approached it again in 2022. I have so far received 30 notices of hearings for my cases. I have been provided in RTI process the approved format for notice circulated for compliance by order No. CIC/4/2016-Regr dated 21.09.2017 (copy ATTACHED). Approved format does not reflect the procedure u/r 11 of RTI Rules 2012 in r/o officers other than CPIO and, unlike Notices till 2010 (that were issued to CPIO and FAA for comment on my Appeal or Complaint, with subsequent rejoinder option to me), allows concurrent WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS up to same deadline, variably fixed. I have not found on CIC website information related to rule 11 or meaning and purpose of concurrent WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. FACTS: I made request dated 12/07/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00793 to CPIO in o/o Registrar for copies of (1) orders/ circulars/ instructions related to clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) & (vi) of rule 11 of RTI Rules, (2) orders/ instructions related to fixing deadline for the WRITTEN SUBMISSION allowed by Notice of hearing, and (3) any document that defines/ clarifies meaning and purpose of the said WRITTEN SUBMISSION. My request was forwarded to 5 sub-registries. DR to IC(UM) has not given decision. DRs to IC(SC), CIC(YS), IC(HS) and IC(SP) furnished substantively identical online replies dated, respectively, 27/07/23, 02/08/23, 03/08/23 and 10/08/23. I am filing identical appeals. GROUNDS: CPIO has wrongly disposed of u/s 7(1) without providing either information as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i) or any reason from u/s 8 or 9 and by issuing, instead, online reply bearing no relation to my request and/or to RTI Act. Specifically: i) Orders/instructions issued sought from o/o Registrar would have been RECEIVED (and held) in sub-registries. CPIO has needlessly opined that sub-registries do not issue circulars/guidelines. ii) CPIO has made irrelevant mention of availability on CIC website of RTI Act, RTI Rules, Case Law and guidelines/circulars. I have not asked for copies of those. Orders/instructions related to notice of hearing (including the approved format and order by which it was circulated that are ATTACHED) are NOT available on CIC website. iii) CPIO has wrongly said information is exempted u/s 7(9). Exemptions are specified u/s 8 and 9. Section 7(9) entitles me to information in the form requested, with 2 exceptions that cannot apply because orders/instructions are covered u/s 4(1)(b)(v) and are to be easily accessible u/s 4(4) with CPIO. REQUEST: Please ask CPIO to provide - from the information, as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i), held in the sub-registry - either the requested copies or reason/s from u/s 8 or 9 for not providing them. 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 |
| 1026 | CICOM/A/E/23/00300 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 12-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00794/3 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that CONTEXT: In 2022-23 I have received 30 CIC notices of hearings for my cases. 9 allowed third parties hearing opportunity only on-phone. 14 impleaded additional public authorities. Reasons were not provided for the particular cases. On CIC website I found reference to third parties only in Minutes of Meeting held on 05.09.2017 (approval of format for notice of hearing) and to multiple PAs only in Minutes of Meeting held on 05.06.2018 (discussed). Notice format does not show either on-phone hearing or multiple PAs and was circulated to sub-registries by the Registrar vide order No. CIC/4/2016-Regr. dated 21.09.2017. (Copy provided in RTI process is ATTACHED.) FACTS: I made request dated 12/07/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00794 to CPIO in o/o Registrar for copies of all orders / instructions related to (1) the mandate u/s 19(4) to give third-party reasonable opportunity to be heard, and (2) the issuing of notice of hearing also to CPIO/s of PAs other than the one in respect of which Complaint or Appeal has been filed. My request was disposed of in sub-registries - 5 times, all wrongly. Deputy Registrar to IC(UM) disposed of No. CICOM/R/E/23/00794/3 on 02/08/23 CPIO by uploading a letter informing: No hearing has been listed in name of Ms Geta Dewan Verma with the Registry of Information Commissioner Sh. Uday Mahurkar. GROUNDS: CPIO has misunderstood my request. The orders / instructions related to hearing opportunity for third parties and to impleading PAs through notice of hearing would have been issued to the (sub) registry of IC(UM) irrespective of the listing of my cases. (Also, 3 of my cases have subsequently been listed for hearings before IC(UM). The notices dated 07/08/23, in modification of the approved format, allow only on-phone hearing for third parties.) REQUEST: Please ask CPIO to provide - from the information, as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i), held in the sub-registry - either the requested copies or reason/s from u/s 8 or 9 for not providing them. 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 (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 15.09.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1027 | CICOM/A/E/23/00299 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 12-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00793/3 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that CONTEXT: I approached this Commission many times till 2010. I approached it again in 2022. I have so far received 30 notices of hearings for my cases. I have been provided in RTI process the approved format for notice circulated for compliance by order No. CIC/4/2016-Regr dated 21.09.2017 (copy ATTACHED). Approved format does not reflect the procedure u/r 11 of RTI Rules 2012 in r/o officers other than CPIO and, unlike Notices till 2010 (that were issued to CPIO and FAA for comment on my Appeal or Complaint, with subsequent rejoinder option to me), allows concurrent WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS up to same deadline, variably fixed. I have not found on CIC website information related to rule 11 or meaning and purpose of concurrent WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. FACTS: I made request dated 12/07/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00793 to CPIO in o/o Registrar for copies of (1) orders/ circulars/ instructions related to clauses (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) & (vi) of rule 11 of RTI Rules, (2) orders/ instructions related to fixing deadline for the WRITTEN SUBMISSION allowed by Notice of hearing, and (3) any document that defines/ clarifies meaning and purpose of the said WRITTEN SUBMISSION. My request was forwarded to 5 sub-registries. DR to IC(UM) has not given decision. DRs to IC(SC), CIC(YS), IC(HS) and IC(SP) furnished substantively identical online replies dated, respectively, 27/07/23, 02/08/23, 03/08/23 and 10/08/23. I am filing identical appeals. GROUNDS: CPIO has wrongly disposed of u/s 7(1) without providing either information as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i) or any reason from u/s 8 or 9 and by issuing, instead, online reply bearing no relation to my request and/or to RTI Act. Specifically: i) Orders/instructions issued sought from o/o Registrar would have been RECEIVED (and held) in sub-registries. CPIO has needlessly opined that sub-registries do not issue circulars/guidelines. ii) CPIO has made irrelevant mention of availability on CIC website of RTI Act, RTI Rules, Case Law and guidelines/circulars. I have not asked for copies of those. Orders/instructions related to notice of hearing (including the approved format and order by which it was circulated that are ATTACHED) are NOT available on CIC website. iii) CPIO has wrongly said information is exempted u/s 7(9). Exemptions are specified u/s 8 and 9. Section 7(9) entitles me to information in the form requested, with 2 exceptions that cannot apply because orders/instructions are covered u/s 4(1)(b)(v) and are to be easily accessible u/s 4(4) with CPIO. REQUEST: Please ask CPIO to provide - from the information, as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i), held in the sub-registry - either the requested copies or reason/s from u/s 8 or 9 for not providing them. 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 |
| 1028 | CICOM/A/E/23/00301 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 12-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00794/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that CONTEXT: In 2022-23 I have so far received 30 CIC notices of hearings for my cases. 9 allowed third parties hearing opportunity only on-phone. 14 impleaded additional public authorities. Reasons were not provided for the particular cases. On CIC website I found reference to third parties only in Minutes of Meeting held on 05.09.2017 (approval of format for notice of hearing) and to multiple PAs only in Minutes of Meeting held on 05.06.2018 (discussed). Notice format does not show either on-phone hearing or multiple PAs and was circulated to sub-registries by the Registrar vide order No. CIC/4/2016-Regr. dated 21.09.2017. (Copy provided in RTI process is ATTACHED.) FACTS: I made request dated 12/07/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00794 to CPIO in o/o Registrar for copies of all orders / instructions related to (1) the mandate u/s 19(4) to give third-party reasonable opportunity to be heard, and (2) the issuing of notice of hearing also to CPIO/s of PAs other than the one in respect of which Complaint or Appeal has been filed. My request was disposed of in sub-registries - 5 times, all wrongly. DRs to IC(SC), CIC(YS), IC(HS) and IC(SP) furnished substantively identical online replies dated, respectively, 27/07/23, 02/08/23, 03/08/23 and 10/08/23. I am filing identical appeals. GROUNDS: CPIO has wrongly disposed of u/s 7(1) without providing either information as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i) or any reason from u/s 8 or 9 and by issuing, instead, online reply bearing no relation to my request and/or to RTI Act. Specifically: i) Orders/instructions issued sought from o/o Registrar would have been RECEIVED (and held) in sub-registries. CPIO has needlessly opined that sub-registries do not issue circulars/guidelines. ii) CPIO has made irrelevant mention of availability on CIC website of RTI Act, RTI Rules, Case Law and guidelines/circulars. I have not asked for copies of those. Orders/instructions related to notice of hearing (including the approved format and order by which it was circulated that are ATTACHED) are NOT available on CIC website. iii) CPIO has wrongly said information is exempted u/s 7(9). Exemptions are specified u/s 8 and 9. Section 7(9) entitles me to information in the form requested, with 2 exceptions that cannot apply because order/instructions are covered u/s 4(1)(b)(v) and are to be easily accessible u/s 4(4) with CPIO. REQUEST: Please ask CPIO to provide - from the information, as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i), held in the sub-registry - either the requested copies or reason/s from u/s 8 or 9 for not providing them. 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 |
| 1029 | CICOM/A/E/23/00302 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 12-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00794/4 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that CONTEXT: In 2022-23 I have so far received 30 CIC notices of hearings for my cases. 9 allowed third parties hearing opportunity only on-phone. 14 impleaded additional public authorities. Reasons were not provided for the particular cases. On CIC website I found reference to third parties only in Minutes of Meeting held on 05.09.2017 (approval of format for notice of hearing) and to multiple PAs only in Minutes of Meeting held on 05.06.2018 (discussed). Notice format does not show either on-phone hearing or multiple PAs and was circulated to sub-registries by the Registrar vide order No. CIC/4/2016-Regr. dated 21.09.2017. (Copy provided in RTI process is ATTACHED.) FACTS: I made request dated 12/07/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00794 to CPIO in o/o Registrar for copies of all orders / instructions related to (1) the mandate u/s 19(4) to give third-party reasonable opportunity to be heard, and (2) the issuing of notice of hearing also to CPIO/s of PAs other than the one in respect of which Complaint or Appeal has been filed. My request was disposed of in sub-registries - 5 times, all wrongly. DRs to IC(SC), CIC(YS), IC(HS) and IC(SP) furnished substantively identical online replies dated, respectively, 27/07/23, 02/08/23, 03/08/23 and 10/08/23. I am filing identical appeals. GROUNDS: CPIO has wrongly disposed of u/s 7(1) without providing either information as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i) or any reason from u/s 8 or 9 and by issuing, instead, online reply bearing no relation to my request and/or to RTI Act. Specifically: i) Orders/instructions issued sought from o/o Registrar would have been RECEIVED (and held) in sub-registries. CPIO has needlessly opined that sub-registries do not issue circulars/guidelines. ii) CPIO has made irrelevant mention of availability on CIC website of RTI Act, RTI Rules, Case Law and guidelines/circulars. I have not asked for copies of those. Orders/instructions related to notice of hearing (including the approved format and order by which it was circulated that are ATTACHED) are NOT available on CIC website. iii) CPIO has wrongly said information is exempted u/s 7(9). Exemptions are specified u/s 8 and 9. Section 7(9) entitles me to information in the form requested, with 2 exceptions that cannot apply because order/instructions are covered u/s 4(1)(b)(v) and are to be easily accessible u/s 4(4) with CPIO. REQUEST: Please ask CPIO to provide - from the information, as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i), held in the sub-registry - either the requested copies or reason/s from u/s 8 or 9 for not providing them. 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 |
| 1030 | CICOM/A/E/23/00304 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 12-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00794/2 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that CONTEXT: In 2022-23 I have so far received 30 CIC notices of hearings for my cases. 9 allowed third parties hearing opportunity only on-phone. 14 impleaded additional public authorities. Reasons were not provided for the particular cases. On CIC website I found reference to third parties only in Minutes of Meeting held on 05.09.2017 (approval of format for notice of hearing) and to multiple PAs only in Minutes of Meeting held on 05.06.2018 (discussed). Notice format does not show either on-phone hearing or multiple PAs and was circulated to sub-registries by the Registrar vide order No. CIC/4/2016-Regr. dated 21.09.2017. (Copy provided in RTI process is ATTACHED.) FACTS: I made request dated 12/07/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00794 to CPIO in o/o Registrar for copies of all orders / instructions related to (1) the mandate u/s 19(4) to give third-party reasonable opportunity to be heard, and (2) the issuing of notice of hearing also to CPIO/s of PAs other than the one in respect of which Complaint or Appeal has been filed. My request was disposed of in sub-registries - 5 times, all wrongly. DRs to IC(SC), CIC(YS), IC(HS) and IC(SP) furnished substantively identical online replies dated, respectively, 27/07/23, 02/08/23, 03/08/23 and 10/08/23. I am filing identical appeals. GROUNDS: CPIO has wrongly disposed of u/s 7(1) without providing either information as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i) or any reason from u/s 8 or 9 and by issuing, instead, online reply bearing no relation to my request and/or to RTI Act. Specifically: i) Orders/instructions issued sought from o/o Registrar would have been RECEIVED (and held) in sub-registries. CPIO has needlessly opined that sub-registries do not issue circulars/guidelines. ii) CPIO has made irrelevant mention of availability on CIC website of RTI Act, RTI Rules, Case Law and guidelines/circulars. I have not asked for copies of those. Orders/instructions related to notice of hearing (including the approved format and order by which it was circulated that are ATTACHED) are NOT available on CIC website. iii) CPIO has wrongly said information is exempted u/s 7(9). Exemptions are specified u/s 8 and 9. Section 7(9) entitles me to information in the form requested, with 2 exceptions that cannot apply because order/instructions are covered u/s 4(1)(b)(v) and are to be easily accessible u/s 4(4) with CPIO. REQUEST: Please ask CPIO to provide - from the information, as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i), held in the sub-registry - either the requested copies or reason/s from u/s 8 or 9 for not providing them. 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 |