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
1061 CICOM/A/P/23/00106 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-08-2023 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/T/23/00014 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। 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
1062 CICOM/A/E/23/00268 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 31-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00792 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “(Appeal for the information from the record of the public authority, i.e., CIC) CONTEXT: I was provided in RTI process copy of CIC office order dated 21/09/2017 No. CIC/4/2016-Regr. for compliance of format of Notice of Hearing approved at CIC meeting held on 05/09/2017. The format is entirely different from the format in which Notices were issued till around 2010-11 (when I last approached this Commission before 2022-23). Notices issued to me in 2022-23 also do not exactly match the format approved in 2017. FACTS: I made request dated 12/07/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00792 w.r.t to CIC office order dated 21/09/2017 No. CIC/4/2016-Regr and a few File numbers of CIC case files in which entirely different Notices were issued for my cases during 2006-10. I sought copies of: 1. The order (like the order No. CIC/4/2016-Regr. dated 21.09.2017) by which the hearing Notice format in use in 2010 was circulated. 2. Each of the orders since 2010 (other than the order No. CIC/4/2016-Regr. dated 21.09.2017) related to format of hearing Notice. 3. The order/s allowing modifications to the format circulated for compliance vide the order No. CIC/4/2016-Regr. dated 21.09.2017. On 31/07/23 CPIO DR (CR-1) provided the following Reply: 1. The copies of the format issued vide order dated 21.09.2017 vide File No CIC/4/2-16-Rgr is enclosed for your perusal. 2. No information other than order of 21.09.2017 is available with us. 3. No information relating to any order of modification in the order of 21.09.2017 is available with us. GROUNDS: A) CPIO has not provided any requested information. He has informed the order dated 21/09/2017 that is cited in and specifically excluded from the request (in point no. 2). B) CPIO has not given decision on behalf of CIC. Section 2(f) defines information to mean material held by the public authority. Orders relating to format of CIC Notice of Hearing from time to time obviously exist in CIC because Notices were issued in common formats at various points. They may not be available in CR-1, but have to be available in CIC because they are patently permanent records (of the organisational history of the primary statutory function of the Commission). REQUEST: Please guide / facilitate CPIO for accessing office orders related to format of CIC Notice of Hearing from other CIC offices and please direct him to provide the requested copies to me thereafter.” 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
1063 CICOM/A/E/23/00267 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 31-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00803 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “(Appeal for complete information for point nos. 1a & 2a) At point nos. 1a & 2a of request dated 13/07/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00803 to CPIO in o/o Registrar I sought information of action taken on (1a) my letter dated 30/12/22 addressed to the Chief and all Information Commissioners through the Registrar (urging consideration of a few questions in a CIC meeting), and (2a) my letter dated 03/07/23 addressed to the Registrar (in the matter of decisions of one FAA in one PA). On 24/07/23 CPIO disposed of my request, with the following responses to point nos. 1a & 2a: 1 (a) Your mail submitted vide Diary Number 59324 dated 28.02.2023 has been forwarded to the Registry of Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners. 2 (a) The letter dated 03.07.2023 addressed o all registries have been forwarded to concerned registries for comments. GROUNDS: A. CPIO has not informed when and to whom my letter dated 30/12/22 was forwarded. His response is contradicted by decisions on my requests dated 04/06/23 for information of its receipt in the respective sub-registries. 2 Deputy Registrars did not reply (DO to CIC(YS) and IC(UM)) and 2 informed that my letter was NOT received, viz.: i. DO to IC(SC) - decision dated 12/06/23 on No. CICOM/R/E/23/00592 (upheld in No. CICOM/A/E/23/00188) ii. DO to IC(VN) - decision dated 28/06/23 on No. CICOM/R/E/23/00590 (upheld in No. CICOM/A/E/23/00213) B. CPIO has referred to my letter dated 03/07/23 as having been addressed to all registries and vaguely informed forwarding to concerned (sub) registries (plural). However: (a) My letter was addressed only to the Registrar. (b) CPIO has not specified the multiple (sub) registries concerned with the matter (of decisions of one FAA) and has not informed when and to whom therein my letter was forwarded. REQUEST: CPIO may please be asked to provide complete information of when and to whom my letters were forwarded.” 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
1064 CICOM/A/E/23/00265 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/23/00055 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “The grounds for first appeal: In my requisition for information dated 12/06/2023 ref no.: CICOM/R/T/23/00055, I had asked for the certified copy of information, as per the RTI copy enclosed. This has been received by the PIO on though the mandated period of 30 days is over, the PIO has sent no reply except 2 point no. 6, which is content of RTI Act and my fundamental right and contravenes the law. My life and liberty is affected due to no reply received from PIO. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo moto to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. Other important duties of public authority under Section 4 include cataloguing, indexing and computerization of records, publishing certain basic information pertaining to each organization within a specified timeframe, publishing all relevant facts while making important policy decisions and ensuring every information is disseminated widely and in an easily accessible manner for the public. Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Due to these reasons the First Appeal is made under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act 2005. Please send the First Appeal’s investigation result or order copy or information to my above mentioned address by registered post and email id:balaramv87@gmail.com MY “PRAYER / PLEA” IN THIS FIRST APPEAL: 1) Instruct the CPIO, in writing, to give the complete information forthwith as requested in my RTI Application and send me a copy of the written notification which you have sent to the Public Information Officer. 2) Issue a written warning to the CPIO, under the present Rules and Regulations of Service, instructing him that he should adhere to the time limits specified in the RTI Act 2005 as well as respect the RTI Act in its letter and spirit. And send me a copy of the written warning which you have sent to the Public Information Officer. 3) Inform the concerned CPIO that the appellant will move a Second appeal before the CIC under Section 19(3) and will demand imposition of penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act, at the rate of Rs. 250.00 for every day of delay (subject to a maximum of Rs. 25,000.00) from the date the information was due till the date the full information is actually given to me. 4) As per Sec 7(6) of the RTI Act, the PIO should now provide me the information "free of Charge" since the provision of information has been delayed beyond the mandated 30 days as provided in Sec7(1) of the RTI Act. 5) As per Sec 19(5) of the RTI Act 2005, during the appeal proceedings, the CPIO, should be asked to explain his “deemed” denial of request for information, since the onus to prove that the denial of request was justified, is on the CPIO. 6) Recommend to the Appellate Authority or State Information Commission that a penalty should Levied on the PIO under Section 20 (10) of the Act 22 of 2005, for not providing the information as mandated in the law. 7) Request you to conduct a proper hearing for this First Appeal and instruct to PIO to supply of required Information.” DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. The opportunity of written submission, for the first appeal, provided to the appellant is found to be reasonable opportunity of hearing. The written submissions made by the appellant in his first appeal application are found to be sufficient for consideration by the FAA to arrive at a decision under the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, it was felt that the personal hearing as requested by appellant was not necessary. 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 RTI application no. DOP&T/R/E/23/03715 was transferred from D.o.P.T. to Central Information Commission as RTI No. CICOM/R/T/23/00055 for Point No. 6 only. 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
1065 CICOM/A/E/23/00263 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00678 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that 1. Under the RTI Act, the CIC and State Information Commissions (for short, ‘SICs’) have been created as statutory bodies to decide appeals and complaints against public authorities for non-compliance with the RTI law. 2. It is most surprising that the CIC would utilize the services of Shri S.K. Chitka (who is not even a regular employee) to refuse/obstruct the information for which the Appellant reserves his right to seek copy of the appointment letter issued to Shri S.K. Chitkara, appointing him as the CPIO. 3. Nevertheless, the CIC allowed Shri S.K. Chitakara to misinterpret the definition of Information as provided U/S 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under: PRAYER In view of the position explained above, the FAA is humbly requested to: 1. Direct Shri S.K. Chitkara to provide the Appellant the certified copy of information as early as possible free of cost as the information has been delayed to uphold the principles of justice in the true spirit of the RTI Act, 2005. 2. To ensure that officially designated CPIO handles RTI applications filed with the Commission. 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, 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
1066 CICOM/A/E/23/00264 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00641 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that The grounds for first appeal: In my requisition for information dated 12/06/2023 ref no.: CICOM/R/E/23/00641, I had asked for the certified copy of information, as per the RTI copy enclosed. This has been received by the PIO on though the mandated period of 30 days is over, the PIO has sent no reply, which is 2 content of RTI Act and my fundamental right and contravenes the law. My life and liberty is affected due to no reply received from PIO. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo moto to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. Other important duties of public authority under Section 4 include cataloguing, indexing and computerization of records, publishing certain basic information pertaining to each organization within a specified timeframe, publishing all relevant facts while making important policy decisions and ensuring every information is disseminated widely and in an easily accessible manner for the public. Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Due to these reasons the First Appeal is made under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act 2005. Please send the First Appeal’s investigation result or order copy or information to my above mentioned address by registered post and email id:balaramv87@gmail.com MY “PRAYER / PLEA” IN THIS FIRST APPEAL: 1) Instruct the CPIO, in writing, to give the complete information forthwith as requested in my RTI Application and send me a copy of the written notification which you have sent to the Public Information Officer. 2) Issue a written warning to the CPIO, under the present Rules and Regulations of Service, instructing him that he should adhere to the time limits specified in the RTI Act 2005 as well as respect the RTI Act in its letter and spirit. And send me a copy of the written warning which you have sent to the Public Information Officer. 3) Inform the concerned CPIO that the appellant will move a Second appeal before the CIC under Section 19(3) and will demand imposition of penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act, at the rate of Rs. 250.00 for every day of delay (subject to a maximum of Rs. 25,000.00) from the date the information was due till the date the full information is actually given to me. 4) As per Sec 7(6) of the RTI Act, the PIO should now provide me the information "free of Charge" since the provision of information has been delayed beyond the mandated 30 days as provided in Sec7(1) of the RTI Act. 5) As per Sec 19(5) of the RTI Act 2005, during the appeal proceedings, the CPIO, should be asked to explain his “deemed” denial of request for information, since the onus to prove that the denial of request was justified, is on the CPIO. 6) Recommend to the Appellate Authority or State Information Commission that a penalty should Levied on the PIO under Section 20 (10) of the Act 22 of 2005, for not providing the information as mandated in the law. 7) Request you to conduct a proper hearing for this First Appeal and instruct to PIO to supply of required Information. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. The opportunity of written submission, for the first appeal, provided to the appellant is found to be reasonable opportunity of hearing. The written submissions made by the appellant in his first appeal application are found to be sufficient for consideration by the FAA to arrive at a decision under the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, it was felt that the personal hearing as requested by appellant was not necessary. In the instant case, CPIO (DR to IC-UM) is directed to reply to the RTI application and provide information as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 06.09.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1067 CICOM/A/E/23/00266 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00712 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “First Appeal regarding point no. 1, 2 ,3, 4 CPIO not understood my question clearly. I asked about the certified copy of information but CPIO not provided the certified copy of information. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo moto to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. Other important duties of public authority under Section 4 include cataloguing, indexing and computerization of records, publishing certain basic information pertaining to each organization within a specified timeframe, publishing all relevant facts while making important policy decisions and ensuring every information is disseminated widely and in an easily accessible manner for the public. 3 Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Due to these reasons the First Appeal is made under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act 2005. Please send the First Appeal’s investigation result or order copy or information to my above mentioned address by registered post and email id:balaramv87@gmail.com MY “PRAYER / PLEA” IN THIS FIRST APPEAL: 1) Instruct the CPIO, in writing, to give the complete information forthwith as requested in my RTI Application and send me a copy of the written notification which you have sent to the Public Information Officer. 2) Issue a written warning to the CPIO, under the present Rules and Regulations of Service, instructing him that he should adhere to the time limits specified in the RTI Act 2005 as well as respect the RTI Act in its letter and spirit. And send me a copy of the written warning which you have sent to the Public Information Officer. 3) Inform the concerned CPIO that the appellant will move a Second appeal before the CIC under Section 19(3) and will demand imposition of penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act, at the rate of Rs. 250.00 for every day of delay (subject to a maximum of Rs. 25,000.00) from the date the information was due till the date the full information is actually given to me. 4) As per Sec 7(6) of the RTI Act, the PIO should now provide me the information "free of Charge" since the provision of information has been delayed beyond the mandated 30 days as provided in Sec7(1) of the RTI Act. 5) As per Sec 19(5) of the RTI Act 2005, during the appeal proceedings, the CPIO, should be asked to explain his “deemed” denial of request for information, since the onus to prove that the denial of request was justified, is on the CPIO. 6) Recommend to the Appellate Authority or State Information Commission that a penalty should Levied on the PIO under Section 20 (10) of the Act 22 of 2005, for not providing the information as mandated in the law. 7) Request you to conduct a proper hearing for this First Appeal and instruct to PIO to supply of required Information.” DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. The opportunity of written submission, for the first appeal, provided to the appellant is found to be reasonable opportunity of hearing. The written submissions made by the appellant in his first appeal application are found to be sufficient for consideration by the FAA to arrive at a decision under the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, it was felt that the personal hearing as requested by appellant was not necessary. 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
1068 CICOM/A/E/23/00262 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00804 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “CPIO, himself mentioned that the requested information available in Public Domain on Hon’ble Commission website however the way this information available on Hon’ble Commission Website can’t be downloaded & no search functionality is also available there from which appellant can find the requested information. Thus, if CPIO can provide the required information is direct way i.e., in textual way instead of giving website link or redirect to other source, it will be very helpful to appellant as appellant has to produce this information in ‘Court of Law’ & appellant already attached the required information related to it with his RTI application. Thus, I request you with folded hands, kindly direct the CPIO to provide the request information in direct way. However, in case First Appellate Authority feels appellants appeal is not maintainable then appellant wants the hearing opportunity which is a mandatory provision as per RTI act 19(1) same is pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9095/2012 Manohar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr on dated 13-12-2012 in matter related to Right to Information Act, 2005 itself where Hon’ble Justice(s) explicitly mentioned in para 23” DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. The opportunity of written submission, for the first appeal, provided to the appellant is found to be reasonable opportunity of hearing. The written submissions made by the appellant in his first appeal application are found to be sufficient for consideration by the FAA to arrive at a decision under the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, it was felt that the personal hearing as requested by appellant was not necessary. 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, collate or segregate information that is not a part of the record. The information once published in public domain may not be treated as information held by a particular public authority. 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
1069 CICOM/A/E/23/00261 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00639 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating no response within the time limit “Hi Team I have not received the reply of RTI CICOM/R/E/23/00639 Please send a reply asap and also pay the penalty of delay in reply to the below account number” 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 CPIO (DR to IC-UM) has replied to the RTI application on 08.08.2023. 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
1070 CICOM/A/P/23/00104 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-07-2023 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/2023/00352 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 नहीं है। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि इस आदेश के प्राप्ति के दस दिन के भीतर दिनांक 14.08.2023 तक आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/23/00352 के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पुनः स्पष्ट सूचना प्रेषित की जाये। NA