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
1041 CICOM/A/E/23/00288 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-08-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00790/2 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/23/00790/2 was forwarded to sub-registry of IC(SP) and was disposed of on 10/08/23 with online reply: The requisite 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 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(SP). 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(SP) - 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
1042 CICOM/A/E/23/00289 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-08-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00790/3 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 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 02/08/23 CPIO Deputy Registrar (UM) disposed of No. CICOM/R/E/23/00790/3 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 information sought is unrelated to the listing of cases. CPIO, who himself authenticates the orders of IC(UM), obviously holds office orders related to rule 15 of the RTI Rules 2012 for the sub-registry of IC(UM). He has wrongly disposed of u/s 7(1) without providing either the requested copies or any reason from u/s 8 or 9 for not providing them. 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(UM) - 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
1043 CICOM/A/E/23/00292 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-08-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00791/3 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. 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 CIC 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. Deputy Registrar to IC(UM) disposed of No. CICOM/R/E/23/00791/3 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 scheduling of hearings and service of notice of hearing would have been issued to the (sub) registry of IC(UM) irrespective of the listing of my cases. 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(UM) - 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
1044 CICOM/A/E/23/00295 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-08-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00791/2 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. 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(SP) disposed of No. CICOM/R/E/23/00791/2 on 10/08/23. 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(SP) - 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
1045 CICOM/A/E/23/00280 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 10-08-2023 ऑनलाइन आर.टी.आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन CICOM/R/E/2023/00539 के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रेषित की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों एवं मांगी गई सूचना के अनुसार ही है। परन्तु अपीलकर्ता ने अपनी अपील में लिखा है कि उसे बिंदुवार सूचना प्रेषित नहीं की गई है, अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि इस आदेश के प्राप्ति के दस दिन के भीतर दिनांक 31.08.2023 तक आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/23/00539 के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पुनः स्पष्ट सूचना प्रेषित की जाये। NA
1046 CICOM/A/E/23/00281 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 10-08-2023 ऑनलाइन आर.टी.आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन CICOM/R/E/2023/00541 के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रेषित की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों एवं मांगी गई सूचना के अनुसार ही है। परन्तु अपीलकर्ता ने अपनी अपील में लिखा है कि उसे बिंदुवार सूचना प्रेषित नहीं की गई है, अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि इस आदेश के प्राप्ति के दस दिन के भीतर दिनांक 31.08.2023 तक आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/23/00541 के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पुनः स्पष्ट सूचना प्रेषित की जाये। NA
1047 CICOM/A/E/23/00278 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 10-08-2023 ऑनलाइन आर. टी. आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन CICOM/R/E/2023/00805 के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रेषित की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों एवं मांगी गई सूचना के अनुसार ही है। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना तथ्यात्मक है और इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है। NA
1048 CICOM/A/E/23/00279 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 10-08-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00785 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: According to the CPIO Central Information Commission does not have the records which made it beleive that Jainendra Kumar Jhamb is an architect. The commission has declared me an architect in its captioned decision. I deserve the copies of the proofs which made the Central Information Commission believe that I am an architect. As a matter of fact I am a retired SBI personnel , calling me an architect in the related decision makes me a selfish misuser of RTI Act. I am sure the commission does not want to do so. Atleast, kindly arrange to rewrite the captioned decision in the light of th fact that the appellant is not an architect, he is a retired SBI personnel, in fact the whistle blower who reported the misconduct to SBI vigilance department. The entire case of second appeal changes when we take this fact in consideration. 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
1049 CICOM/A/E/23/00277 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-08-2023 ऑनलाइन आर. टी. आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन CICOM/R/E/2023/00743 के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रेषित की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों एवं मांगी गई सूचना के अनुसार ही है। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना तथ्यात्मक है और इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है। NA
1050 CICOM/A/E/23/00275 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-08-2023 ऑनलाइन आर. टी. आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन CICOM/R/E/2023/00834 के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रेषित की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों एवं मांगी गई सूचना के अनुसार ही है। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना तथ्यात्मक है और इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है। NA