| SNo. | Registration No | Appellate Authority Name | Received date | Reply Appeal | Reply Doc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1071 | CICOM/A/P/23/00105 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 27-07-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00341 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that CPIO has provided only one certified copy for point no. 2 of the RTI application and the appellant requests for one additional certified copy of the same. DECISION OF 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 |
| 1072 | CICOM/A/E/23/00257 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 25-07-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00519 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “This Appeal is filed on following grounds. 1. For that the RTI ONLINE PORTAL has been malfunctioning for about last 1 month, so I was unable to access my RTI and its reply in time. The fact of the malfunctioning of the RTI ONLINE PORTAL is prominently published by DOPT on the landing page. Hence any delay of about 8 days in filing this first appeal may be condoned. 2. For that the CPIO has blatantly lied when he says there is no record for request point No. 1. The decision at page 3 itself states that the said URL has provided by the FAA.A further copy was to be supplied by the FAA to the appellant. So it most defiintely exists on the CIC record and will be found in the e-file.. 3. For the CPIO has blatantly lied for point no. 2 of my request. Once again the FAA has stated in the decision that the URL has been published. Since this is a matter of great public interest it should be given to the whole world and not only to the appllcant. Section 8(1)(i) proviso very clearly says that the entire information and material should be SUO-MOTO accessible to citizens once the Cabinet decision is over. Hence also the entire e-file must be provided to me 4. The CPIO has misread the RTI Act. This is clearly discloseable information, if at all there is third party interest then CPIO should issue section 11 notices to all concerned. Third party interests cannot be used to deny information without following section 11 procedure. In the present case there is no personal information whatsoever in the information requested. 5. The CPIO obviously does not seem to know basics of RTI Act from his replies to point 4 and 6. It is a blatant lie for CPIO to claim for points 1,2,4 and 5 that no record is available. When the Information Commissioners like Mr. Y.K. Sinha, Ms. Vanaja N Sarna can publish the mobile numbers of escorts and call girls in their orders to benefit a notorious pimp who has them in his grip, then surely the URL of the information which is to be mandatorily disclosed under proviso to section 8(1)(i) would also be easily disclosed by Ms. Vanaja N Sarna immediately upon the FAA providing it. 6. That I have come to know that the same notorious pimp also has the Additional Secretary of CIC in his grip and has pressured Ms. Roop Avtar Kkaur to pass some orders in this matter stating that the information I have requested does not fall under definition of information in section 2(f) of RTI Act. To facilitate this Ms. Kaur has compelled her juniors, who are all temporary contract workers, to misplace and tamper the files which contain the information requested. 7. Because a corrigendum was strangely issued in the concerned order. PRAYERS 1. All information requested be traced out by circulating a trace memo to all CPIOs in CIC 2. Third party notice u/s 11 be issued to all third parties. 3. The entire e-files of this matter be given to me. 4. All information be now given to me free of cost. 5. Condone delay†DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point No.1, 2, 4 & 5 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. For Point No. 3 As per Section 8(1)(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual may be exempted from disclosure unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such 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 |
| 1073 | CICOM/A/E/23/00258 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 25-07-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00391 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Respected sir, Requested information not received by the applicant. Please provide the requested information at the earliest please.†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-SP) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide information as mentioned by the CPIO in the RTI reply as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 31.08.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1074 | CICOM/A/E/23/00259 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 25-07-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00727 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “FACTS: In its Annual Report for 2009-10 CIC had reported that it had constituted its second national sub-committee (in para-3.7.1), that the sub-committee had submitted its report (in para-3.7.3), and that the report was available on CIC website (in para-3.7.5, with URL that no longer works). On 27/06/23 I made request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00727 for, at point nos. 1 to 3, copies of the order by which the sub-committee was constituted, the letter by which its report was submitted and part of the report related to TOR item v. At point no. 4 I sought, in case the report cited in CIC Annual Report is not traceable in CIC, particulars of the CIC officer who is nominated Records Officer under the Public Records Act 1993 (or, if CIC has not nominated an officer as Records Officer, to be specifically informed that). On 25/07/23, CPIO Consultant SO (Admin) has given decision saying, under Information provided, for point no. 1&2 that No such information is available and for point no. 3&4 that Custodian of the information is State Information Commission, Andhra Pradesh. Meanwhile, I have accessed the CIC website publication through archive.org. CIC notification of its second national sub-committee, nominating the then CIC Additional Secretary nodal officer for it, is ATTACHED for your information. This appeal is for the information sought in point no.4 of my request dated 17/06/23. REQUEST: Please inform the particulars of the CIC officer who is nominated Records Officer under the Public Records Act 1993. (If CIC has not nominated any officer as Records Officer, please SPECIFICALLY inform that). GROUNDS: CPIO has provided false information. Andhra Pradesh SIC is not custodian of, besides the report of the second national sub-committee of CIC, the information of the CIC officer that CIC has nominated as Records Officer under the Public Records Act.†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 |
| 1075 | CICOM/A/E/23/00260 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 25-07-2023 | Ref RTI No.-CICOM/R/E/23/00728 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “PRIOR REQUEST: On 01/03/23 I had made request no. CICOM/R/E/23/00181 for a certified copy of the Directive No. CIC/AT/D/10/000111 dated 15/11/2010 that was issued by the whole Commission and information of its publication on and removal from CIC website. Decision dated 31/03/23 of CPIO Consultant SO (Admin) had simply said: No such information is available on record. In appeal dated 04/04/23 No. CICOM/A/E/23/00113 I had requested specific official confirmation, by an officer of the Commission on official letterhead of the Commission, that the Directive No. CIC/AT/D/10/000111 is not available on the record of the CIC and that no information of its publication on / removal from the websites of the CIC is available on the record of the CIC. My appeal was rejected with online decision dated 28/04/23. I requested signed order vide letter dated 01/05/23, to which I received no response. FACTS: In request dated 27/06/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00728 I attached page no. 197 of the CIC Annual Report for 2010-2011 on which letter dated 31/03/2011 No. CIC/DS(P)/Section 4/Comp/2010 of the then Secretary CIC to all Secretaries to GOI w.r.t. D.O letter No. CIC/AT/D/10/000111 dated 18/11/2010 is reproduced and requested inspection of the file/s in which the letters were issued. On 25/07/23 CPIO Consultant SO (Admin) has disposed of my request by informing: Requisite file is not readily traceable. GROUNDS: CPIO has not indicated the effort made to trace the file before deciding that it is not readily traceable. REQUEST: Please ascertain u/s 19(5) that CPIO has made the necessary effort to trace the file. If he has not, please have the file traced and made available to me for inspection. If he has, please include in your decision the details of his effort. I again request signed order on official letterhead.†DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. CPIO (Admin Section) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide information as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 04.09.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly | NA |
| 1076 | CICOM/A/P/23/00103 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 24-07-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00315 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal being not satisfied with the reply of the CPIOs. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point No. 1,2,3,10,11,12,15,16,18,19,21 to 29, 31 & 32 The reply given by the CPIOs 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. For Point No. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17 & 20 In the instant case, CPIO (SO-GA) is directed to revisit the RTI application for point no. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 14, 17 & 20 and provide information as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 04.09.2023. For Point No. 30 CPIO (Admin Section) is directed to revisit the RTI application for point no. 30 and provide information as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 04.09.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1077 | CICOM/A/E/23/00255 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 23-07-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00683 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that provided incomplete, misleading and false information: “Sr. No. 1 to 6 Totally provided false, misleading and unsatisfactory reply . Kindly provide satisfactory and Correct information immediately.†DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point No. 1, 2, 3, 5, &6 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. 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. For Point No. 4 As per Section 8(1)(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual may be exempted from disclosure unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such 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 |
| 1078 | CICOM/A/E/23/00254 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 23-07-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00681 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that provided incomplete, misleading and false information: “Totally Misleading or False information given by CIC. Provide Correct information immediately.†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 |
| 1079 | CICOM/A/E/23/00253 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 23-07-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00680 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that provided incomplete, misleading and false information: “1. Provide the name, designation and tenure of employees posted for more than 5 years in the same section. 2. How many employees were rotated as per rotational transfer policy of CIC dated 10-12-2020. Kindly provide list with his name, designation and his tenure. CIC Reply for 1&2: No such information maintained Nonsense reply given by CIC Totally Misleading of False reply. Kindly provide correct information immediately.†DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point No. 1 & 2 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. 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. For Point No. 3 As per Section 8(1)(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual may be exempted from disclosure unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such 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 |
| 1080 | CICOM/A/E/23/00249 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 21-07-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00690 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “FACTS: Advertisement circular dated 28/09/2021 F. No. Admn-17011/6/2021-ADMN-CIC, issued by Deputy Secretary Shri S K Rabbani, for engagement of Consultant Registrar on contract basis is found on CIC website. Also found is similar circular dated 27/05/2019 F. No. 2/46/2016/Admn/CIC/Registrar and office order dated 01/10/2013 F. No. 2/3/2010/Admn-CIC engaging Dr M K Sharma as Consultant Registrar. Citing the aforesaid, on 20/06/23 I made request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00690 to CPIO, Deputy Secretary Shri S. K. Rabbani for: (1) copies of all advertisements for engaging Consultant Registrar in CIC, (2) the number of applications received, number of applicants shortlisted, composition of selection committee and names and designations of the candidates selected / empanelled in each case, (3) copies of the orders for appointment / extension of term of Registrar engaged on contract basis, and (4) subject / title of each of the CIC files containing the information sought. I received no response from CPIO, Deputy Secretary Shri S K Rabbani. CPIO Consultant SO (Admn) disposed of my request by letter dated 19/07/23 that provides - under the heading Information provided - combined remark for all 4 points: Requisite information cannot be provided as it would disproportionately divert the resources of the Commission. In this connection section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005 also refers. GROUNDS: A) CPIO has not said why he has given decisions on my request to CPIO Deputy Secretary Shri S K Rabbani. B) CPIO has not given point-wise decision and has wrongly combined point no.4 with the other points. C) CPIO has wrongly invoked section 7(9) for point no. 4. Information of subject / title of CIC files (including 3 for which file numbers are mentioned in request itself) is part of the information that is to be permanently maintained in file registers as per Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure. In terms of the RTI Act, it is information covered u/s 4(1)(a) for which section 7(9) cannot be invoked. D) Because CPIO has not informed, for point no.4, the subject / title of files containing the information sought, it is not clear how CPIO has given decision at all. E) CPIO has wrongly invoked section 7(9) to refuse information. Section 7(9) may be invoked to refuse the form in which information in requested, but not to refuse the information requested. CPIO has not offered the information in alternate form, e.g., by inspection of files. REQUEST: Please direct the CPIO having custody of CIC files relating to advertisements for filling the post of Registrar on contract basis to provide to me forthwith the information sought in point no. 4, i.e., subject/ title of the said files as well as the rest of the information either in the form requested or in alternate form such as inspection of the files to be informed for point no. 4. NB: If you are inclined to reject this appeal request, kindly do so by signed order on official letterhead.†DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal and the RTI application have been perused. In the instant case, CPIO (Admin Section) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide information as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 28.08.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |