| SNo. | Registration No | Appellate Authority Name | Received date | Reply Appeal | Reply Doc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1081 | CICOM/A/E/23/00247 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 21-07-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00686 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “CONTEXT / CAUSE: Current powers and duties of CIC Registrar are not disclosed. RTI Rules 2012 prescribe only the function of authentication of orders of the Commission for Registrar (or any other officer authorised). CIC website publication u/s 4(1)(b)(ii), with noting dated 19/03/2021, has only perfunctory description of powers and duties of Registrar (not including authentication of orders): Overseeing the quasi-judicial functions, including registration of cases for Appeals and Complaints under the RTI Act. Previously, on the other hand, powers and functions of the Registrar were described in great detail in regulation 4 of the CIC (Management) Regulations 2007 that were struck down by the Delhi High Court on 21/05/2010. One old order - viz., dated 28/05/2018 F. No. Misc/AS/PS/2014-CIC/Admn (Pt) - entrusting several functions to the Registrar by exercise of the power u/s 12(6) is found on CIC website (in the Circulars section, where old orders are buried). FACTS: On 20/06/23 I made request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00686 to CPIO in o/o Registrar for COPIES of all orders concerning powers and functions of CIC Registrar issued after 21/05/2010. For the order listing the current powers and duties of the Registrar, if published on CIC website, I also requested the complete path from home page. I received no response from CPIO in o/o Registrar. CPIO Consultant SO (Admin) gave decision dated 19/07/23 saying: Work profile in respect of CIC Registrar is available on Commission’s URL https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/Circulars%20%26Noification/work%20distribution%20bw% 20officers.pdf GROUNDS: A) CPIO has not said why he has given decision on my request to CPIO in o/o Registrar. B) CPIO has neither provided the requested COPIES of orders nor invoked any exemption. The duly requested copies that have not been duly refused are liable to now be provided free of charge u/s 7(6). C) CPIO has not provided path from home page / URL of latest order. URL provided is of order dated 20/12/2016 F. No. Misc/AS/PS/2014-CIC/Admn - i.e., an order OLDER than the detailed order u/s 12(6) dated 28/05/2018 (issued in part file of same file) mentioned in the request. REQUEST: Please provide with your order or direct the CPIO in o/o Registrar to forthwith provide, free of charge u/s 7(6), the requested copies of all orders concerning powers and functions of CIC Registrar issued since 21/05/2010. 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, 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 |
| 1082 | CICOM/A/E/23/00251 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 21-07-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00709 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Grievance Status for registration number - PRSEC/E/2023/0027039 Grievance Concerns To Name Of Complainant Ashish Shankar Date of Receipt 12/07/2023 Received By Ministry/Department President Secretariat Grievance Description No step has been taken in the matter. I request to kindly take some step in the matter. With Regards Yours Truly Ashish Shankar Grievance Status for registration number : PRSEC E 2023 0018526 Grievance Concerns To Name Of Complainant Ashish Shankar Date of Receipt 20 05 2023 Received By Ministry , Department President Secretariat Grievance Description Grievance Status for registration number - PRSEC E 2023 0015805 Grievance Concerns To Name Of Complainant Ashish Shankar Date of Receipt 01 05 2023 Received By Ministry , Department President Secretariat Grievance Description I request to look into the matter - Regarding appointment as Adviser in the Ministry of Defence or Commerce. Attached Department of Personnel and Training letter , Dated - 9 march 23 , 22 March 23 and 31 March 23. Department of Personnel and Training advises redressal within 30 days. I will be obliged and thankful for the help regarding this. With Regards Yours Truly Ashish Shankar Grievance Document Current Status Case closed Date of Action 20 05 2023 Remarks suggestive in nature. No grievance. Hence disposed off. Officer Concerns To Officer Name Shri D. K. Rai , JS MIS Organisation name Department of Defence Contact Address Room No. 6 South Block New Delhi Email Address usdpg-mod@gov.in Contact Number 01123017828 Details - Instructions of DoPT not followed nor any step taken in letter forwarded by the Hon. President Secretariat. I request to take direct action , as in forwarded letter no step is being taken. New letter is also attached - Dated 13 April 23. With Regards Yours Truly Ashish Shankar Grievance Document Current Status Under process Date of Action 22 05 2023 Officer Concerns To Officer Name Ms. D. S. Nagalakshmi (Deputy Secretary) Organisation name Personnel and Training Contact Address Room No. 222, DOPT, North Block, New Delhi Email Address nagus.edu@nic.in Contact Number 01123092841 Grievance Document Current Status Under process Date of Action 13/07/2023 Officer Concerns To Officer Name Ms. D. S. Nagalakshmi (Deputy Secretary) Organisation name Personnel and Training Contact Address Room No. 222, DOPT, North Block, New Delhi Email Address nagus.edu@nic.in Contact Number 01123092841†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 |
| 1083 | CICOM/A/E/23/00250 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 21-07-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00691 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “FACTS: Two advertisement circulars for filling up the post of Registrar on deputation basis, both issued by Deputy Secretary Shri S K Rabbani, are found on CIC website. Circular dated 08/08/2014 was issued File No. 32/1/2012/CIC/Admn. Circular dated 30/09/2021 was issued in File No. Admn-15016/1/2020-ADMN-CIC. Also found is Corrigendum dated 26/03/2019 issued in F. No. Admin-15014/10/2018-ADMN-CIC to circular dated 26/03/2018 bearing No. 32/1/2015/Admn/CIC for filling up the post of Registrar on deputation basis. Citing the aforesaid, on 20/06/23 I made request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00691 to CPIO, Deputy Secretary Shri S. K. Rabbani for: (1) copies of all advertisements issued for filling up the post of Registrar on deputation basis, (2) the number of applications received and the further process and outcome in case of each advertisement, (3) copies of the orders for appointment / extension of term of Registrar on deputation basis, and (4) subject / title of each of the CIC files containing the information sought. I received no response from the CPIO, Deputy Secretary Shri S K Rabbani. CPIO Consultant SO (Admn) disposed of my online request on 19/07/23 by uploading plain paper text reply to some other request. On 20/07/23 I received by post his letter dated 19/07/23 No. 2023/CIC/ADMN/RTI. GROUNDS: A) CPIO has not said why he has given decision on my request to CPIO Deputy Secretary Shri S K Rabbani. B) CPIO has given incomplete decision. He has not decided request point no.4. C) Because CPIO has not disclosed, for point no.4, the subject / title of CIC files containing the information sought (including 4 for which file numbers are mentioned in request itself), it is not clear how he has given decision on other points. D) CPIO has wrongly invoked section 7(9) to refuse point no.1 & 2. Section 7(9) allows CPIO to refuse only the form in which the information is requested, not the information itself. CPIO has not offered any alternative form, such as by inspection of files. REQUEST: Please direct the CPIO having custody of CIC files relating to advertisements for filling the post of Registrar on deputation basis to provide to me forthwith the information sought in (undecided) point no. 4, i.e., subject/ title of the said files containing it as well as the rest of the requested information either in the form requested or in alternate form of 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. For Point No. 1, 2 & 4 CPIO (Admin Section) is directed to revisit the RTI application for Point No. 1, 2, & 4 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 |
| 1084 | CICOM/A/E/23/00245 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 21-07-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00684 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “CONTEXT / CAUSE: Information of all past incumbents of CIC posts is not archived on CIC website. Office orders of appointment / joining and relieving / retirement after 2015 are found sporadically, with several missing and several listed with broken links (error message: The requested page could not be found). The available orders show that officers appointed to CIC are designated a level higher and are issued by, among currently designated CPIOs, Deputy Secretary Shri S K Rabbani. FACTS: On 20/06/23 I made request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00684 to CPIO Deputy Secretary Shri S K Rabbani. I attached list of available office orders for posts of Secretary, Additional Secretary, Joint Secretary, and Director, showing the ones missing / listed with broken links. I sought: (1) Copies of all Office Orders of appointment / joining and relieving / retirement of officers to the said posts from the start, and (2) Copies of the orders / decisions by which officers posted to CIC are re-designated a level higher. I received no response from CPIO Deputy Secretary Shri S K Rabbani. CPIO Consultant SO (Admin) gave decision dated 19/07/23 containing (under Information provided) the remark: 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 decision on my request to CPIO Deputy Secretary Shri S K Rabbani. B) CPIO has wrongly refused information by invoking section 7(9). Section 7(9) allows CPIO to refuse the form in which the information is requested and not the information itself. C) Section 7(9) cannot even be invoked for point no. 2, for which no other form is possible. D) Invoking of section 7(9) for point no. 1 conveys that CIC has no institutional memory of officers who have served it in the past and does not care that information is shoddily published with broken links on its website. REQUEST: Please provide with your order the copies of the orders/decisions by which officers posted to CIC are re-designated a level higher that I duly requested in point no.2 on 20/06/23. For point no.1, please have provided to me in any form that suits CIC information of all its past Secretaries, Additional Secretaries, Joint Secretaries and Directors. 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, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005, “An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.†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 |
| 1085 | CICOM/A/E/23/00246 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 21-07-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00685 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “CONTEXT: The Central Information Commission (Management) Regulations, 2007 provided (in regulation 3) that the Commission may design nate one or more of its officers to act as Registrar(s), Joint Registrar(s), Deputy Registrar(s) or Assistant Registrar(s). Powers and functions of the Registrar were laid down in regulation 4 that empowered, in clause (xxi), the Registrar to delegate any function to a Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar or Assistant Registrar. FACTS: I made request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00685 dated 20/06/23 to CPIO in o/o Registrar, CIC for information - for the period during 1007-2010 in which CIC Management Regulations were in force - of (1) Names and posting designations of all officers designated under Regulation 3 to act as Registrar, Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar, and Assistant Registrar, and (2) copies of all delegations made under Regulation 4(xxi) by the officer designated as Registrar to any of the officers designated as Joint / Deputy / Assistant Registrars. I received no response from CPIO in o/o Registrar. CPIO Consultant SO (Admin) gave decision dated 19/07/23 containing, as Information provided, refusal of point no.1 u/s 7(9) and for point no.2 the comment: No such information is available. GROUNDS: A) CPIO Consultant SO (Admin) has not said why he has decided my request to CPIO in o/o Registrar. B) CPIO has wrongly used section 7(9) to refuse point no. 1. Section 7(9) allows refusal only of the form in which the information is requested and not the information itself. The form (names and posting designations) is simple enough, but if CPIO found it complex he should have offered file inspection. C) CPIO has refused point no.2 with a remark that is patently false because during 2007-2010 CIC had Joint / Deputy / Assistant Registrars and the Regulations in force required their functions to be delegated by Registrar. REQUEST: Please direct CPIO to either provide me the requested information - either in the form requested or in the form of inspection of files related to regulation 3 and 4 of the CIC (Management) Regulations 2007. 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, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point No.1 As per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005, “An information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question.†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. 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. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1086 | CICOM/A/E/23/00248 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 21-07-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00689 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “CONTEXT / CAUSE: The directory currently published on CIC website u/s 4(1)(b)(ix) of the RTI Act shows that 2 out of the 3 Joint Secretaries in CIC are also ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR and that CIC has 8 DEPUTY REGISTRAR positions (including one vacant position). There is no disclosure u/s 4(1)(b)(ii) about powers and duties of ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR and DEPUTY REGISTRAR. FACTS: On 20/06/23 I made request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00689 for information about ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR and DEPUTY REGISTRAR. I sought, at point nos. 1(a) and 2(a), information in case the said positions are sanctioned posts and, at point nos. 1(b) and 2(b), in case they are not. On 19/07/23, CPIO Consultant SO (Admin) disposed of my request with the remark, under Information provided, that no such information is available - only against point nos. 1(a) and 2(a), with no remark for point nos. 1(b) and 2(b). GROUNDS: A) CPIO has, by deciding point nos. 1(a) & 2(a) and NOT deciding point nos. 1(b) & 2(b), conveyed the false information that ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR and DEPUTY REGISTRAR are sanctioned posts. (I have been provided by DOPT in RTI process the list of sanctioned posts in CIC). B) CPIO has not decided the applicable point nos. 1(b) and 2(b) that patently do not attract any exemption u/s 8 or 9. The copies that CPIO has not provided are liable to be provided free of charge u/s 7(6). REQUEST: Please provide with your order the copies requested under point nos. 1(b) & 2(b) of my request dated 20/06/23, i.e., copies of: 1b(i) the general orders by which CIC Joint Secretaries / officers are designated ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR, 1b(ii) the orders by which Joint Secretaries Shri Sidh Kumar and Shri Rahul Rastogi were designated ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR, 2b(i) the general orders by which officers and consultants appointed to other posts are re-designated DEPUTY REGISTRAR, 2b(ii) the appointment / engagement orders of Sh. S.K. Chitkara, Sh. A.K. Assija, Sh. R.S. Murthy, Sh. R.P. Grover, Sh. C.A. Joseph, Sh. R.K. Rao, and Sh. Sharad Kumar (showing the posts to which they were appointed / engaged), and 2b(iii) the orders by which Sh. S.K. Chitkara, Sh. A.K. Assija, Sh. R.S. Murthy, Sh. R.P. Grover, Sh. C.A. Joseph, Sh. R.K. Rao, and Sh. Sharad Kumar were designated DEPUTY REGISTRAR. 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, 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 |
| 1087 | CICOM/A/E/23/00252 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 21-07-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00735 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “FACTS: CIC website Home page has a Public Authorities tab with a drop-down list of links including a link GUIDELINES FOR FILING ONLINE RETURNS and a link SUBMIT QUARTERLY RETURN / TRANSPARENCY AUDIT. The former is to a PA Module User Guide (appearing to be of 2017/2018, with no mention of Transparency Audit). The latter is to the login screen https://dsscic.nic.in/users/pn-login that is different (with additional FAA button) from the screenshot on first page of the User Guide. Because the information published by way of User Guide is clearly out-dated, to know the up-to-date information that the CIC has chosen to make public about the PA Module of its software I made request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00735 dated 27/06/23 for: (1) Copy of current PA Module User Guide or, if no User Guide has been issued, screenshots of the screens related to FAA, Transparency Audit and any other changes made in the software since the publication of the available User Guide. (2) Full form / meaning of dsscic in https://dsscic.nic.in/ (3) Specimen copy of the PDF viewable from the View Appeals/Complaint(Nodal) option in the screenshot at top of pdf page 8 of 14 in the PA Module User Guide that is published. On 20/07/23 MR Section CPIO gave decision informing for point no.1 the path to the out-dated User Guide mentioned in the request and saying for point nos. 1&2: Information is not available in this office. GROUNDS: The answering CPIO appears to have no information / understanding of the CIC software. He has wrongly disposed of my request without taking necessary assistance u/s 5(4) from the persons authorised to use the PA module of the CIC software on behalf of CIC as PA. REQUEST: Please direct CPIO to provide the requested information after taking necessary assistance u/s 5(4) from CIC Nodal Officer and others authorised for use, on behalf of CIC as PA, of the PA module of the CIC software for filing quarterly returns and transparency audit.†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 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. 2 CPIO (M&R Section) is directed to revisit the RTI application for Point No. 2 and provide information as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 28.08.2023. For Point No. 3 Nodal Officer and CPIO (RTI Cell) is directed to revisit the RTI application for Point No. 3 and provide information as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 28.08.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1088 | CICOM/A/E/23/00244 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 19-07-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00646 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “In the online hearing dated 19/07/2023 , before the CIC, in presence of EPFO representative Mr. Sushant Kandwal, the appellant , through the copies of misleading and false replies provided by the CPIO, EPFO, has proved the violation of RTI, by the CPIO of EPFO, through misleading and false reply apart from the details sought. Observing this proved violation, instead of taking due action on the defaulter CPIO, the Honble Information Commissioner Mr. Heeralal Samariya , showing his biased attitude favoring the defaulter CPIO, stopped listening to the appellant and unexpectedly left the hearing without decision. Hence information sought in the application for the action taken against the defaulter CPIO EPFO, for violating RTI with misleading and false reply has been provided to the RTI applicant. Hence this appeal is filed before the respected first appellate authority.†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 |
| 1089 | CICOM/A/E/23/00242 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 19-07-2023 | ऑनलाइन 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 CICOM/R/E/2023/00755 के 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। 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। | NA |
| 1090 | CICOM/A/E/23/00243 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 19-07-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00646 The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “In the online hearing dated 19/07/2023, before the CIC, in presence of EPFO representative Mr. Sushant Kandwal, the appellant , through the copies of misleading and false replies provided by the CPIO, EPFO, has proved the violation of RTI, by the CPIO of EPFO, through misleading and false reply apart from the details sought. Observing this proved violation, instead of taking due action on the defaulter CPIO, the Honble Information Commissioner Mr. Heeralal Samariya , showing his biased attitude favoring the defaulter CPIO, stopped listening to the appellant and unexpectedly left the hearing without decision. Hence information sought in the application for the action taken against the defaulter CPIO EPFO, for violating RTI with misleading and false reply has been provided to the RTI applicant. Hence this appeal is filed before the respected first appellate authority.†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 |