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
1101 CICOM/A/E/23/00234 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00736 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “CONTEXT: Project Locator is described in CIC Annual Report for 2012-2013 as a single transparent system of legal information storage, cataloguing, indexing, dissemination, sharing and retrieval of decisions, an e-governance project to give the citizen and all other stake holders access to all the decisions of the Commission with IT-enabled retrieval mechanism based on search of relevant sections, terms, phrases, etc. AppCoMs-Locator is described in subsequent Annual Reports as including the module for archiving the decisions of the Commission that was main component of Project Locator. FACTS: Stating that I do not have term/phrase-based Locator search facility from my end of CIC website, I made request dated 27.06.23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00736 to be provided, after retrieval of the necessary data at CIC end (by search on my name), certified copies of all decisions since 2005 involving me in any capacities (i.e., as complainant, as appellant, as authorised representative, as assisting person, in citation of a case of mine, etc). On 12/07/23 CPIO has disposed of my request with Commission reply providing information of the CIC website Decisions search page. GROUNDS: A) The Commission reply provided is false and misleading. The requisite information is NOT available through the website page informed. Specifically, the available search form: i) does NOT give me option to search a term or phrase (my name) to locate decisions involving me in any capacity other than complainant or appellant, ii) does NOT show up many of my cases on any available search (e.g., No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00182, No. CIC/LS/A/2010/001094-DS), iii) does NOT give access to the decision, which is NA, in some cases that do show up (e.g., No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00614, No. CIC/WB/A/2006/00183) B) CPIO has not provided the requested copies even of decisions that are NOT available through the simplistic search form made available (and needlessly informed) to me. REQUEST: CPIO may please be asked to have the necessary data retrieved by term / phrase-based Locator search of archived decisions and provide the requested copies of those decisions that are not accessible through the search page informed.” 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
1102 CICOM/A/E/23/00232 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-07-2023 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/2023/00638 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
1103 CICOM/A/P/23/00099 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00231 प्रथम अपील का आधार “अपीलकर्ता, केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी के जवाब से संतुष्ट नहीं है।” निर्णय 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/23/00231 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। तदनुसार अपील निस्तारित की जाती है। NA
1104 CICOM/A/P/23/00100 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00358 प्रथम अपील का आधार “केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी, ने कोई सूचना उपलब्ध नहीं कराई।” निर्णय 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/23/00358 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। परन्तु आपने अपनी प्रथम अपील में यह कहा है कि अभी तक कोई सूचना प्राप्त नहीं कराई गई। जबकि केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा पत्र दिनांक 02.08.2023 के द्वारा सूचना भेजी जा चुकी है। केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा दी गई सूचना, दिनांक 02.08.2023 की प्रति, प्रथम अपील के आर्डर के साथ संलग्न की जा रही 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। तदनुसार अपील निस्तारित की जाती है। NA
1105 CICOM/A/P/23/00098 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 10-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00330 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal being not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO. DECISION OF 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
1106 CICOM/A/E/23/00230 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00657 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that refused access to information requested and no reply received. 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 attachment linked by applicant as the RTI application is not visible and an error shows as “An Error Occurred During Viewing The Document or Document is Not Available. Click here to close the window”, the screenshot of the same is attached with this order. 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. download pdf
1107 CICOM/A/E/23/00229 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00656 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Please provide the Reply in reference to filed RTI Application No. CICOM/R/E/23/00656 dated 14-06-2023: 1. The Status of Response shows that Reply sent by Post on 28-06-2023, however the Applicant has not received the Post till date. Hence, please share the Speed Post Consignment number to Track the Delivery status of the Post. 2. Please send the scan copy of Response document which was sent through Post on 28-06-2023.” 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, CPIO(DR to CIC) replied to the RTI application on 28.06.2023 but as mentioned by the appellant in the first appeal of non-receipt of the RTI reply, a copy of the same with speed post tracking details is attached with this order. 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. download pdf
1108 CICOM/A/E/23/00228 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00437 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that no response within the time limit. Greetings It is submitted that I have filed an RTI as per RTI Act- 2005 on 28/04/2023 vide Application No. CICOM/R/E/23/00437. It is submitted that I have received no response so far of my application. I requested that kindly do the needful as soon as possible, as it is a violation of RTI Act DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal and the RTI application have been perused. In the instant case, CPIO (DR to IC-UM) is directed to reply to the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 20.07.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1109 CICOM/A/E/23/00225 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00559 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “(Appeal regarding point no.1 only) BACKGROUND: In 2022-2023 I was issued 19 CIC Notices of Hearings in 4 batches, each batch different from the others and all very different from notices issued to me up to around 2010 (when I had last approached this Commission). I had looked for notice format information on CIC website and found only mention of approvals in CIC Meetings on 05.09.2017 & 03.04.2018. For information of those and current approvals I made request dated 04.12.2022 that was processed in Admin Section. 2nd Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2023/616956 dated 02.04.2023 is pending (and, as per CIC Annual Report, viewable by PA in APPCOMS for purpose of providing the information in the wait-time). FACTS: 5 Notices of hearings before IC Mr Heeralal Samariya issued to me on 02.02.2023 did not say: By order of the Commission. On 29.05.2023 I made request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00559 to Deputy Registrar & CPIO for copies of orders / decisions by which they were issued to me. On 22.06.2023 CPIO informed: All the Hearing notice was issued as per format available in the Commission software ie APPCOMS. No specific order for issuance of notices are on record. On 28.06.2023, however, Dy Registrar & CPIO for IC Ms Saroj Punhani disposed of my similar request by providing copy of order No. CIC/4/2016-Regr. dated 21.09.2017 for compliance of notice format approved at CIC meeting held on 15.09.2017 (saying By Order of the Commission and also otherwise not matching, in para-3 & 4, the notices dated 02.02.2023). REQUEST: Please have all concerned CPIOs including CPIOs for AAPCOMS and Registrar orders, submit to you all orders/decisions by which the multiple notice formats in use were approved and please provide, UPLOADED WITH YOUR ONLINE DECISION, copies of all orders/decisions by which format of the Notices dated 02.02.2023 was used on me. GROUNDS: (A) I have been informed Notices issued to me were in format available on APPCOMS, but have not been provided the requested orders / decisions by which that format was approved and made available on APPCOMS for use on me. (B) Notice of hearing is part of CIC practice for discharge of functions u/s 18 & 19 and CIC is mandated u/s 4(1)(b)(v) to publish the instructions used to discharge its functions. Information specified u/s 4(1)(b) is covered by the prior general definition u/s 2(f) of information that I may request. Section 4(2) makes clear that I should not have to request it and, if I have to, section 4(3) & (4) guarantee me easy access through CPIO (without any creating / collating). The information that I desire is that which CIC has failed to publish for me u/s 4(1)(b) and failed to make easily accessible to me u/s 4(3) & (4) through its CPIOs. DOPT guidelines for FAAs and for implementation of section 4 seem to require that it be provided to me with the decision of CIC FAA & HOD.” 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
1110 CICOM/A/E/23/00226 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00560 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “(Appeal for complete / correct information for point no.1) BACKGROUND: In 2022-2023 I was issued 19 CIC Notices of Hearings in 4 batches, each batch different from the others and all very different from notices issued to me up to around 2010 (when I had last approached this Commission). I had looked for notice format information on CIC website and found only mention of approvals in CIC Meetings on 05.09.2017 & 03.04.2018. For information of those and current approvals I made request dated 04.12.2022 that was processed in Admin Section. 2nd Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2023/616956 dated 02.04.2023 is pending (and, as per CIC Annual Report, viewable by PA in APPCOMS for purpose of providing the information in the wait-time). FACTS: 6 Notices of hearings before IC Ms Saroj Punhani issued to me on 06.04.2023 did not say: By order of the Commission. On 29.05.2023 I made request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00560 to Deputy Registrar & CPIO for copies of orders / decisions by which they were issued to me. By decision dated 28.06.2023 CPIO provided copies of circular No. CIC/14/2016 dated 22.07.2016 and office order No. CIC/14/2016-Regr. dated 21.09.2017 and the remark: However, clubbing of cases of appellant is made with a view to expedite disposal of pending 2nd appeals/complaints. GROUNDS: (A) Remark about expedited disposal is un-related to my request. The 6 cases were disposed of (by uploading unsigned Decisions to the website) two months after the hearings. (B) Information provided by way of copies is incomplete / seems unrelated to the request: (i) Circular No. CIC/14/2016 dated 22.07.2016 is no order / decision. It is public notice saying cases shall be taken up in chronological order except by decision in particular matters. No particular decisions have been informed. (ii) Order No. CIC/14/2016-Regr. dated 21.09.2017 was for compliance of notice format approved on 15.09.2017. Notices dated 06.04.2023 were NOT in that format. Specimen is ATTACHED. (It does not have approved para-3, its para-3 & 4 are very different from approved para-4 & 5, its para-5 modifies approved para-6, its para-6&7 modify approved para-7) (C) Information of orders / decisions by which notices are issued to me is not only squarely covered u/s 2(f) but also owed to me u/s 4(1)(d), the provision that directly guarantees me accountability about decisions that affect me. REQUEST: CPIO may please be asked to provide to me clear and complete information of the orders / decisions by which the 6 Notices dated 06.04.2023 (that did not say they were issued by order of the Commission) were issued to me.” 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