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
1111 CICOM/A/E/23/00227 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00561 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “(Appeal for clear complete information) BACKGROUND: 5 Notices dated 31.08.2022 of hearings before IC Ms Saroj Punhani were issued to me for 5 cases concerning 3 different PAs and subjects. Bunched listing and notice format were at odds with my past experiences (up to around 2010, when I had last approached this Commission). I found no information u/s 4(1)(b) on CIC website about current practices. In Minutes of Meetings, I found mention of bunching on 23.02.2016 and of notice format on 05.09.2017 & 03.04.2018. For copies of agenda and information of current practices I made separate requests dated 04.12.2022 that were processed in Admin Section. 2nd Appeals No. CIC/CICOM/A/2023/608137 dated 13.02.2023 and No. CIC/CICOM/A/2023/616956 dated 02.04.2023 are pending (and, as per CIC Annual Report, viewable by PA in APPCOMS for providing the information in the wait-time). FACTS: Notices dated 31.08.2022 said they were by order of the Commission (specimen ATTACHED). On 29.05.2023 I made request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00561 to Deputy Registrar & CPIO for copies of (1) the said order and (2) orders / decisions enabling case-by-case modifications. In combined 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 5 cases were disposed by unsigned Decisions 106 days after the hearings. (B) CPIO has NOT provided all orders / decisions by which Notices dated 31.08.2022 were issued to me: (i) Order dated 21.09.2017 was for compliance of notice format approved on 15.09.2017. Notices dated 31.08.2022 were not in that format. CPIO has not provided any order / decision enabling modification of the approved format informed and has also not said that that order dated 21.09.2017 is the order of the Commission mentioned in the Notices. (ii) Circular 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. CPIO has not informed the decisions to accord precedence to my 2 altogether different cases when my 3 cases arising from one request reached in chronological order. (C) Information of order of the commission specifically mentioned in Notices 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 please provide to me the complete information of the order of the Commission mentioned in the 5 Notices dated 31.08.2022 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
1112 CICOM/A/E/23/00223 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00744 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “2,refer cic order dated 23.05.2023 para 5.2 respondent submission, respondent submission is oral or written . provide evidence of respondent submission. cpio not provide specific reply on query no 2 and 4 . cpio not disclose the information,respondent submission is oral or written. if oral ,who record oral submission please advise cpio to provide specific reply.” 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
1113 CICOM/A/E/23/00220 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00712/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that First Appeal regarding point no. 1, 2 ,3, 4 I am not satisfied with the CPIO reply because I can’t able to understand clearly what is the maximum duration or timeframe declared by Central Information commission to resolve or investigate the grievance or complaint petition. For example: If CIC picked any one grievance or second appeal petition based on First cum First serve basis then I want to know the maximum duration or timeframe declared by Central Information commission to resolve or investigate the grievance or second appeal petition. I want to know whether central information commission will take 1 month or 1 year to investigate and provide the judgment to any grievance or second appeal petition. And if any grievance or second appeal petition is related to life and liberty then I want to know the maximum duration or timeframe declared by Central Information commission to resolve or investigate the grievance or complaint petition. 3 Finally, I didn’t receive the Central Information commission’s grievance redressal policy document or order copy from other CPIO. Due to these reasons the First Appeal is made under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act 2005 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. 2) 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. 3) 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. 4) As per Sec 19(5) of the RTI Act 2005, during the appeal proceedings, the CPIO, should be asked to explain his “deemed” incomplete information of request for information, since the onus to prove that the incomplete information of request was justified, is on the CPIO. 5) I want to he heard during the first appeal and will be available on Mobile:7411435858 It is therefore requested 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. For Point No. 1, 2 & 3 – Reply by CPIO(DR CR I) 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. 4 – Reply by CPIO(Admin Section) 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(Admin Section) has replied for Point no.4 of the RTI application on 21.07.2023 by speed post and disposed off the RTI application on the RTI portal on 25.07.2023. 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
1114 CICOM/A/E/23/00219 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00453 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that. 1. Mr Assija didn’t provide all files for inspection on 30-05-2023 2. Hon’ble I/C Ms. Vanjana N Sarna had to intervene because inspection was being carried out next to her office and verbally directed Shri A K ASSIJA to arrange for all files within 5 days and inform appellant to inspect the same. 3. Till date Shri A K ASSIJA has not informed the appellant to inspect the files that were not awailable for inspection on 30-05- 2023 4. Shri A K ASSIJA has not taken any action to arrange the files for inspection knowing fully well that Hon’ble I C Ms. Vanjana N Sarna is going to relinquish her office on 21 June 2023 and he may not be CPIO of files after 21-06-2023 5. Annexed email was sent to Nodal officer for non compliance of verbal direction of Hon’ble I/C Ms. Vanjana N Sarna 1. 1st Appellate Authority (under RTI Act),Central Information Commission, is requested to take into consideration CIC decision in file number CIC/NICSI/C/2022/625490+ CIC/NICSI/A/2022/631043 reproduced below Decision: The CPIO CIC is directed to revisit all the points of the RTI application and after taking assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act from the custodian in CIC provide a suitable point-wise reply to the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. He should specifically mention the reason for denial in case any information is denied. In case information is not available or does not exist the same also should be categorically informed. The CPIO NICSI is issued a strict warning for not explaining the non-availability of information. The factual information asked either can be not available due to non-existence or due to being held by some other public authority. The same should have been explained by the CPIO in his initial reply. 2. In view of CIC document retention policy of 6 months, as communicated by CPIO Shri Subodh Kumar vide letter CICOM/R/E/21/00558 dated 09-09-2021 1 st AA is requested to order CPIO Shri A K Assjia or the present CPIO to provide complete information as requested in RTI Application. 3. 1st Appellate Authority (under RTI Act), Central Information Commission, is also requested to direct all concerned to retain all related records till the disposal of 2nd appeal/complaint if the need so arises due to order of 1st Appellate Authority/its implementation by the concerned CPIOs. 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, 3, 7 & 9 CPIO (DR to IC-HS) is directed revisit the point no. 1, 3, 7, & 9 of the RTI application, by 07.08.2023. For Point No. 4 & 6 CPIO (DR to IC-SC) is directed revisit the point no. 4 & 6 of the RTI application by 07.08.2023. For Point No. 10 CPIO (RTI Cell) is directed revisit the point no. 10 of the RTI application by 07.08.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1115 CICOM/A/P/23/00095 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-07-2023 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/2023/00273 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। सकता 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
1116 CICOM/A/P/23/00097 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00306 DECISION OF 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
1117 CICOM/A/P/23/00096 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-07-2023 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/23/00244 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
1118 CICOM/A/E/23/00222 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00605 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “(Appeal against supply of patently false information) FACTS: On 06.04.2023 I made RTI Online request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00605. I attached in it copy of DOPT office copy of DOPT OM dated 22.09.2011 to CIC Secretary on the subject of Sanctioned strength in the Central Information Commission, further to 6 prior orders. I requested (1) CIC copy of the OM dated 22.09.2011 and basic details / File Register entries (File number, subject, when opened, when closed, whether recorded, etc) of the CIC file in which it is filed and (2) copies of the 6 prior orders mentioned in it. On 04.07.2023, Admin Section CPIO disposed of my request by uploading a letter that says point-wise, under Information provided: No such information is available. GROUNDS: CPIO has given a decision that vaguely conveys - instead of specifically stating - that CIC does not hold the specified orders on subject of sanctioned strength in CIC or any (other) SUCH information. This so-called information provided patently false. CIC holding no record of orders regarding its sanctioned strength is far less likely than the answering CPIO having issued response without consulting the relevant CIC files. REQUEST: Kindly provide - or direct CPIO to provide - EITHER the requested information OR, if it is indeed not held in CIC, clear decision specifically stating that DOPT OM dated 22.09.2011 to CIC Secretary on the subject of sanctioned strength in CIC and the 6 prior orders mentioned in it are not held in CIC (and, consequently, information of the CIC file in which the OM is filed is not available).” 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
1119 CICOM/A/E/23/00221 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00604 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “FACTS: Minutes of CIC Meetings are published on CIC website. In Meeting held on 29/11/22 it was decided that IC(SP) will submit a report on issues pertaining to outsourced staff. In Meeting held on 03/01/23 the report submitted by IC(SP) was discussed. I made request dated 06/04/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00604 for copy of the said report. On 04/07/22, Admin Section CPIO has rejected my request by saying: Information exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (d) of RTI Act, 2005. REQUEST: Please obtain from CPIO u/s 19(5) - and provide in your decision u/s 19(6) - justification of CPIO for rejecting my request and: (i) If you find the rejection justified, please provide speaking order on my Grounds C & D(a)-(c) herein and please have RTI Online status of my request no. CICOM/R/E/23/00604 rectified to REQUEST REJECTED, or (ii) If you find the rejection wholly or partly unjustified, please provide in whole or part the requested copy of, now free of charge u/s 7(6). GROUNDS: (A) CPIO is required to justify denial u/s 19(5) in appeal proceedings (and not necessarily in decision u/s 7(1)). (B) CPIO has rejected my request for reason u/s 8(1)(d), but has not made Request Rejected entry in the RTI Online RTI MIS account of CIC. (C) CPIO has rejected my request by vaguely mentioning section 8(1)(d) and not even saying in his letter that the report submitted by IC(SP) is what is exempt, let alone why it is exempt. The exemption u/s 8(1)(d) applies to: information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. CPIO has not disclosed: (a) the category under which the report submitted by IC(SP) falls (i.e., commercial confidence OR trade secret OR intellectual property OR any other affecting competitive position of third party), (b) the type of competitive position/s affected or the nature of harm that would be caused by providing to me in RTI process a copy of the report submitted by IC(SP), (c) any competent authority decision that the harm to third party competitive position/s outweighs public interest in disclosure of the report submitted by IC(SP). (D) CPIO has not offered, in terms of the severability provisions u/s 10, any part of the report submitted by IC(SP). It is not clear if CPIO even accessed and examined the report before rejecting my request for copy of it.” DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. As per Section 8(1)(d), information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, can be denied unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants 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
1120 CICOM/A/E/23/00217 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00594 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “(Appeal against refusal of request point no.2) FACTS: In request dated 04/06/2023 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00594 I attached a letter that I had addressed through Registrar to the Chief and all Information Commissioners. I sought information of its receipt etc in sub-registry / office of IC Ms Saroj Punhani and, in point no.2, requested CPIO to please inform: whether or not (Yes or No) any cases of denial of information due to the fact that files are not traceable have been followed up through your sub-registry in terms of the meeting decision reproduced in question no.8 of my letter dated 30-Dec-22 - and, if yes, please provide the case file numbers. On 03/07/2023 CPIO DO to IC(SP) has furnished online Reply, refusing point no. 2 saying: Appellant is seeking clarification on the decision of the commission which is not covered in the sec 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. REQUEST: Please set aside the refusal of my request point no. 2 and have CPIO give clear decision on it. GROUNDS: A) I have NOT sought any clarification on any Decision of any bench of the Commission. I have sought information from CIC records of follow-up on a decision taken at CIC meeting held on 10/04/2007, i.e.: The Commission decided that whenever it is brought to the notice of the Information Commissioners that information has not been given due to the fact that files are not traceable, the matter should be viewed seriously and strict follow up action should be taken to ensure that the information is made available to the Appellants. Wherever required Section 204 of the IPC can be resorted to. (Minutes of the said Meeting, available on CIC website, are ATTACHED for ready reference). A request to the public authority CIC about follow-up on a CIC Meeting decision is covered u/s 2(f) because CIC meetings give effect to section 12(4) of the RTI Act. B) It may be recalled that my request dated 04/12/2022 No. CICOM/R/E/22/01208 for information about follow-up on the said Meeting decision was processed in Admin Section. Pursuant to FAA direction to revisit, the then CPIO informed that: The concerned file for the year 2007 is not readily traceable in the Commission and efforts are being made to trace the same. As soon as the same is available, the desired information would be forwarded to the applicant. I received no further intimation from Admin Section. It occurred to me that whatever the details about follow-up in the untraceable file, the first information of cases to be followed up would have to come from the sub-registries. Therefore, on 04/06/2023 I made the same request to all sub-registries. None of the other CPIOs have invoked section 2(f) to refuse request point no.2.” 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