| SNo. | Registration No | Appellate Authority Name | Received date | Reply Appeal | Reply Doc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1031 | CICOM/A/E/23/00291 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 11-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00791/1 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. To acquaint myself with current practices, I went through CIC website. I have not found the latest orders / instructions for handling cases. Last order found is dated 28.05.2018 F. No. Misc/AS/PS/2014-CIC/Admn (Pt), issued u/s 12(4) pursuant to approval of agenda no. 5 Delegation of powers to Registrar at CIC meeting held on 22.05.2018 (ATTACHED). It entrusted CIC Registrar, who may be assisted by and delegate to any officer, with scheduling hearings and service of notices. I have not found on CIC website any further orders entrusting or delegating the said matters to anyone else or any instructions of Registrar for assistance regarding them (although such orders / instructions fall u/s 4(1)(b)(ii) & (v) of RTI Act). My cases are not being scheduled in order of their filing and the 30 Notices that I have so far received in 6 batches have not been uniformly served. FACTS: I made request dated 12/07/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00791 to CPIO in o/o Registrar for copies of all orders / instructions since 2017 regarding (1) Scheduling of hearings, and (2) Service of Notice of Hearing. My request was disposed of in sub-registries - 5 times, all wrongly. DO to IC(SC) disposed of No. CICOM/R/E/23/00791/1 on 27/07/23. 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, 185 words 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 in sub-registries. CPIO has needlessly opined that sub-registries do not issue circulars/guidelines. CPIO has added they work under direction of the Commissioners - without informing even any relevant direction. 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. I have asked for copies of orders/instructions not found on the 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 to the Information sought (in form of copies, after failing to find it on CIC website) because it is covered u/s 4(1)(b) and is to be easily accessible u/s 4(4) with CPIO. iv) CPIO has opined that the endnote in my request is unclear and volunteered a comment about service that is clearly belied by the variations illustrated in my note. REQUEST: Please ask CPIO to provide - from the information, as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i), held in the sub-registry of IC(SC) - 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 |
| 1032 | CICOM/A/E/23/00293 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 11-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00791/4 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. To acquaint myself with current practices, I went through CIC website. I have not found the latest orders / instructions for handling cases. Last order found is dated 28.05.2018 F. No. Misc/AS/PS/2014-CIC/Admn (Pt), issued u/s 12(4) pursuant to approval of agenda no. 5 Delegation of powers to Registrar at CIC meeting held on 22.05.2018 (ATTACHED). It entrusted CIC Registrar, who may be assisted by and delegate to any officer, with scheduling hearings and service of notices. I have not found on CIC website any further orders entrusting or delegating the said matters to anyone else or any instructions of Registrar for assistance regarding them (although such orders / instructions fall u/s 4(1)(b)(ii) & (v) of RTI Act). My cases are not being scheduled in order of their filing and the 30 Notices that I have so far received in 6 batches have not been uniformly served. FACTS: I made request dated 12/07/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00791 to CPIO in o/o Registrar for copies of all orders / instructions since 2017 regarding (1) Scheduling of hearings, and (2) Service of Notice of Hearing. My request was disposed of in sub-registries - 5 times, all wrongly. DR to CIC(YS) disposed of No. CICOM/R/E/23/00791/4 on 02/08/23. 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, 165 words 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 (ad 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. I have asked for copies of orders/instructions not found on the 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 to the Information sought (in form of copies, after failing to find it on CIC website) because it is covered u/s 4(1)(b) and is to be easily accessible u/s 4(4) with CPIO. iv) CPIO has opined that the endnote in my request is unclear and volunteered general comment about service that is clearly belied by the variations illustrated in my note. REQUEST: Please ask CPIO to provide - from the information, as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i), held in the sub-registry of CIC(YS) - 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 |
| 1033 | CICOM/A/E/23/00282 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 11-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00909 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “I want the information from the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) which recruits personnel for banking field.†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. As per the Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the applicant shall file information request with the concerned Public Authority which holds the information. 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 |
| 1034 | CICOM/A/E/23/00290 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 11-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00807 निरà¥à¤£à¤¯: 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/E/23/00807 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। तदà¥à¤¨à¥à¤¸à¤¾à¤° अपील निसà¥à¤¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¿à¤¤ की जाती है । | NA |
| 1035 | CICOM/A/E/23/00294 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 11-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00791 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. To acquaint myself with current practices, I went through CIC website. I have not found the latest orders / instructions for handling cases. Last order found is dated 28.05.2018 F. No. Misc/AS/PS/2014-CIC/Admn (Pt), issued u/s 12(4) pursuant to approval of agenda no. 5 Delegation of powers to Registrar at CIC meeting held on 22.05.2018 (ATTACHED). It entrusted CIC Registrar, who may be assisted by and delegate to any officer, with scheduling hearings and service of notices. I have not found on CIC website any further orders entrusting or delegating the said matters to anyone else or any instructions of Registrar for assistance regarding them (although such orders / instructions fall u/s 4(1)(b)(ii) & (v) of RTI Act). My cases are not being scheduled in order of their filing and the 30 Notices that I have so far received in 6 batches have not been uniformly served. FACTS: I made request dated 12/07/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00791 to CPIO in o/o Registrar for copies of all orders / instructions since 2017 regarding (1) Scheduling of hearings, and (2) Service of Notice of Hearing. My request was disposed of in sub-registries - 5 times, all wrongly. DO to IC(HS) disposed of No. CICOM/R/E/23/00791 on 03/08/23. 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, 165 words 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 (ad 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. I have asked for copies of orders/instructions not found on the 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 to the Information sought (in form of copies, after failing to find it on CIC website) because it is covered u/s 4(1)(b) and is to be easily accessible u/s 4(4) with CPIO. iv) CPIO has opined that the endnote in my request is unclear and volunteered general comment about service that is clearly belied by the variations illustrated in my note. REQUEST: Please ask CPIO to provide - from the information, as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i), held in the sub-registry of IC(HS) - 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 |
| 1036 | CICOM/A/E/23/00286 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 11-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00790/4 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that CONTEXT: Rule 15 of the RTI Rules 2012 stipulates that the order of the Commission shall be in writing and issued under the seal of the Commission duly authenticated by the Registrar or any other officer authorised by the Commission for this purpose. CIC office order dated 28.05.2018 F. No. Misc/AS/PS/2014-CIC/Admn (Pt), issued u/s 12(4) pursuant to approval at CIC meeting held on 22.05.2018 of agenda no. 5 Delegation of powers to Registrar, available on CIC website, says: The Registrar shall communicate the decisions, directions or orders of the Commission to the concerned person(s) and all such communications signed and authenticated by the Registrar or under his authority shall be deemed to be the communication from the Commission. I have not found on CIC website any orders authorising anyone else for authenticating and issuing. In 2022-23 I have received 11 orders/decisions and 4 corrigenda. None is authenticated by Registrar. 7 orders and 2 corrigenda are also not signed by the IC. FACTS: I made request dated 12/07/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00790 to CPIO in o/o of Registrar for COPIES of office orders / instructions related to (1) issuing an order of the Commission, including in respect of signature of the IC, (2) issuing corrigendum, including in respect of signature of the IC, (3) authenticating an order of the Commission, and (4) (for each officer currently authorised to authenticate) (a) appointment order and (b) order authorising for authentication. My request was disposed of 7 times, all wrongly. No. CICOM/R/E/23/00790/4 was forwarded to sub-registry of the Chief Information Commissioner. On 10/08/23 it has been disposed of by CPIO DS(GA) with online reply: Requisite information has been sent by post on 10.08.2023. Letter uploaded therewith says: Information has already been provided by the DR & CPIO (CR-1) vide File No. CICOM/R/E/23/00790/5 dated 31/07/2023. GROUNDS: A) CPIO has furnished false online reply. His letter contains no information, which is duly defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i) of RTI Act and required u/s 7(9) to be provided in the form requested (i.e., copies). B) CPIO has wrongly stated that CPIO (CR-1) provided information. CPIO (CR-1) provided a REPLY TO QUESTIONS crafted from personal knowledge / opinion. My appeal against it is ATTACHED. C) CPIO (CR-1) conveyed the information sought is NOT held in Central Registry and lies in sub-registries or administrative section. CPIO DS(GA) has not stated if he has decided the forwarding to sub-registry of Chief IC or a further-forwarding to GA section and has not provided point-wise decision on behalf of either. REQUEST: CPIO may please be asked to give point-wise decision and to provide the requested copies from the material held in either the sub-registry of Chief IC or GA 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 |
| 1037 | CICOM/A/E/23/00284 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 11-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00790/6 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that CONTEXT: Rule 15 of the RTI Rules 2012 stipulates that the order of the Commission shall be in writing and issued under the seal of the Commission duly authenticated by the Registrar or any other officer authorised by the Commission for this purpose. CIC office order dated 28.05.2018 F. No. Misc/AS/PS/2014-CIC/Admn (Pt), issued u/s 12(4) pursuant to approval at CIC meeting held on 22.05.2018 of agenda no. 5 Delegation of powers to Registrar, available on CIC website, says: The Registrar shall communicate the decisions, directions or orders of the Commission to the concerned person(s) and all such communications signed and authenticated by the Registrar or under his authority shall be deemed to be the communication from the Commission. I have not found on CIC website any orders authorising anyone else for authenticating and issuing. In 2022-23 I have received 11 orders/decisions and 4 corrigenda. None is authenticated by Registrar. 7 orders and 2 corrigenda are also not signed by the IC. FACTS: I made request dated 12/07/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00790 to CPIO in o/o of Registrar for COPIES of office orders / instructions related to (1) issuing an order of the Commission, including in respect of signature of the IC, (2) issuing corrigendum, including in respect of signature of the IC, (3) authenticating an order of the Commission, and (4) (for each officer currently authorised to authenticate) (a) appointment order and (b) order authorising for authentication. My request was disposed of 7 times, all wrongly. No. CICOM/R/E/23/00790/6 was disposed of by M&R section CPIO by letter dated 04/04/23 furnishing Commission reply on Point No 1 to 4: Information does not pertain to M&R Section. Reply has already been given by another CPIO vide Commission letter No. CICOM/R/E/23/00790/5 dated 31-07-2023. GROUNDS: A) CPIO has referred to his decision as Commission reply and to decision of another CPIO (i.e., CPIO (CR1)) as reply vide Commission letter. Decision u/s 7(1) is given not by PA but by CPIO and, in case of multiple CPIOs / forwarding, on behalf not of PA but of office / section of CPIO. B) CPIO has stated that the information does not pertain to M&R Section, but APPSCOM concerns M&R section and the reply of CPIO (CR-1) that CPIO has cited specifically mentions APPSCOM. CPIO has not provided copies of any APPSCOM related orders / instructions in support of that reply. (CPIO (CR-1) did not provide or specify any orders/instructions. My appeal against his reply is ATTACHED.). REQUEST: CPIO may please be asked to give point-wise decision on behalf of M&R Section and provide (or duly refuse) copies of APPSCOM related orders / instructions relevant to point no.1 and any other point of my request. 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 |
| 1038 | CICOM/A/E/23/00285 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 11-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00790/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that CONTEXT: Rule 15 of the RTI Rules 2012 stipulates that the order of the Commission shall be in writing and issued under the seal of the Commission duly authenticated by the Registrar or any other officer authorised by the Commission for this purpose. CIC office order dated 28.05.2018 F. No. Misc/AS/PS/2014-CIC/Admn (Pt), issued u/s 12(4) pursuant to approval at CIC meeting held on 22.05.2018 of agenda no. 5 Delegation of powers to Registrar, available on CIC website, says: The Registrar shall communicate the decisions, directions or orders of the Commission to the concerned person(s) and all such communications signed and authenticated by the Registrar or under his authority shall be deemed to be the communication from the Commission. I have not found on CIC website any orders authorising anyone else for authenticating and issuing. In 2022-23 I have received 11 orders/decisions and 4 corrigenda. None is authenticated by Registrar. 7 orders and 2 corrigenda are also not signed by the IC. FACTS: I made request dated 12/07/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00790 to CPIO in o/o of Registrar for COPIES of office orders / instructions related to (1) issuing an order of the Commission, including in respect of signature of the IC, (2) issuing corrigendum, including in respect of signature of the IC, (3) authenticating an order of the Commission, and (4) (for each officer currently authorised to authenticate) (a) appointment order and (b) order authorising for authentication. My request was disposed of 7 times, all wrongly. On 08/08/23 CPIO (Admin Section) disposed of No. CICOM/R/E/23/00790/1 by uploading a paper saying: Information already provided by the DR & CPIO (CR-1) vide File No. CICOM/R/E/23/00790/5 dated 31 Jul 2023. GROUNDS: A) CPIO has wrongly stated that CPIO (CR-1) provided information. Information is defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i) of the RTI Act and is required u/s 7(9) to be provided in the form requested (i.e., copies in the instant case). CPIO (CR-1) provided, instead of information, a REPLY TO QUESTIONS crafted from his personal knowledge / opinion. My appeal against it is ATTACHED. B) The information that CPIO has said CPIO (CR-1) has already provided conveys that the information sought is NOT held in Central Registry and specifically states for point no. 4(a) that it is kept by Admin Section. CPIO has not provided the requested copies for point no. 4(a) and has not decided the other points of my request. REQUEST: CPIO may please be asked to give point-wise decision on behalf of Admin Section and, if reply of CPIO (CR-1) for point no. 4(a) is correct, to provide the copies requested therein (of the appointment order for each of the officers currently authorised for purpose of authenticating an Order of the Commission). 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 |
| 1039 | CICOM/A/E/23/00283 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 11-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00790/5 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: CONTEXT: Rule 15 of the RTI Rules 2012 stipulates that the order of the Commission shall be in writing and issued under the seal of the Commission duly authenticated by the Registrar or any other officer authorised by the Commission for this purpose. ATTACHED herewith from CIC website is order dated 28.05.2018 F. No. Misc/AS/PS/2014-CIC/Admn (Pt), issued u/s 12(4) pursuant to approval at CIC meeting held on 22.05.2018 of agenda no. 5 Delegation of powers to Registrar, that says: The Registrar shall communicate the decisions, directions or orders of the Commission to the concerned person(s) and all such communications signed and authenticated by the Registrar or under his authority shall be deemed to be the communication from the Commission. I have not found on CIC website any orders authorising anyone else for authenticating and issuing. In 2022-23 I have received 11 orders/decisions and 4 corrigenda. None is authenticated by Registrar. 7 orders and 2 corrigenda are also not signed by the IC. FACTS: I made request dated 12/07/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00790 to CPIO in o/o of Registrar for COPIES of office orders / instructions related to (1) issuing an order of the Commission, including in respect of signature of the IC, (2) issuing corrigendum, including in respect of signature of the IC, (3) authenticating an order of the Commission, and (4) (for each officer currently authorised to authenticate) (a) appointment order and (b) order authorising for authentication. My request was disposed of 7 times, all wrongly. CPIO (CR-1) disposed of No. CICOM/R/E/23/00790/5 on 31/07/23. GROUNDS: CPIO has NOT provided information in the requested form (COPIES), as mandated u/s 7(9). He has wrongly disposed of u/s 7(1) by, instead of providing information as defined u/s 2(f) & (i), creating from personal knowledge / opinion a REPLY TO QUESTIONS answering no point of my request. Specifically: i. For point no.1 CPIO has replied that authenticated signed order is received in Central Registry for uploading but has not provided / specified any order etc saying so (nor indicated how I was issued, after uploading, 7 orders NOT signed by the IC). ii. For point no.2 CPIO has replied that Central Registry has no information and said (admittedly without basis) that they are issued by the concerned DR in consultation with the concerned registry. iii. For point no.3 CPIO has replied that Central Registry has no information, while saying that Deputy Registrars authenticate under delegated powers - without providing / specifying any delegation orders. iv. For point no.4 CPIO has replied that appointment orders are kept by Admin Section and the Central Registry has no information of orders authorising for authentication, while also saying (admittedly without basis) that all Deputy Registrars are authorised. REQUEST: CPIO may please be asked to provide the INFORMATION as defined u/s 2(f) & 2(i) of RTI Act, in the requested form (COPIES), on which his REPLY is based 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 |
| 1040 | CICOM/A/E/23/00287 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 11-08-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00790 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that CONTEXT: Rule 15 of the RTI Rules 2012 stipulates that the order of the Commission shall be in writing and issued under the seal of the Commission duly authenticated by the Registrar or any other officer authorised by the Commission for this purpose. CIC office order dated 28.05.2018 F. No. Misc/AS/PS/2014-CIC/Admn (Pt), issued u/s 12(4) pursuant to approval at CIC meeting held on 22.05.2018 of agenda no. 5 Delegation of powers to Registrar, available on CIC website, says: The Registrar shall communicate the decisions, directions or orders of the Commission to the concerned person(s) and all such communications signed and authenticated by the Registrar or under his authority shall be deemed to be the communication from the Commission. I have not found on CIC website any orders authorising anyone else for authenticating and issuing. In 2022-23 I have received 11 orders/decisions and 4 corrigenda. None is authenticated by Registrar. 7 orders and 2 corrigenda are also not signed by the IC. FACTS: I made request dated 12/07/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00790 to CPIO in o/o of Registrar for COPIES of office orders / instructions related to (1) issuing an order of the Commission, including in respect of signature of the IC, (2) issuing corrigendum, including in respect of signature of the IC, (3) authenticating an order of the Commission, and (4) (for each officer currently authorised to authenticate) (a) appointment order and (b) order authorising for authentication. My request was disposed of 7 times, all wrongly. No. CICOM/R/E/23/00790 was forwarded to sub-registry of IC(HS) and was disposed of on 08/08/23 with online reply: Information already provided by the DR & CPIO (CR-1) vide file No. CICOM/R/E/23/00790/5 dated 31.07.2023. GROUNDS: A) CPIO has wrongly stated that information has been provided by CPIO (CR-1). Information is defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i) of RTI Act and is required u/s 7(9) to be provided in the form requested (i.e., copies in the instant case). CPIO (CR-1) did not provide information. He provided a REPLY TO QUESTIONS crafted from personal knowledge / opinion. My appeal against it is ATTACHED. B) CPIO has cited the response of CPIO (CR-1) that conveyed that the information sought is not held in Central Registry and concerns sub-registries, but has not provided point-wise decision on behalf of the sub-registry of IC(HS). REQUEST: CPIO may please be asked to give point-wise decision and to provide - from the information, as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i), held in the sub-registry of IC(HS) - 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 |