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
1121 CICOM/A/E/23/00218 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00589 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that ”(Appeal against disposal by CPIO DO to IC(SP) of request to CPIO DO/DR to CIC(YS) concerning sub-registry of the CIC) FACTS: On 04/06/2023 I made online request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00589 to CPIO Shri SK Chitkara, Designated Officer / Deputy Registrar for information about (1) receipt in the sub-registry /office of the Chief Information Commissioner of a letter that I had sent on 30/12/2022 through Registrar and by email and (2) any cases followed up through the sub-registry of the Chief Information Commissioner in terms of a CIC meeting decision of 2007 (that was cited in my letter). I had made the same request to all sub-registry CPIOs for the information from each sub-registry. CPIO DO/DR to CIC(YS) has not decided my request. Instead, on 03/07/2023, it has been disposed of by DO to IC(SP). REQUEST: Please set aside the disposal by DO to IC(SP) of request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00589 that I had made to DO/DR to CIC(YS) and please have CPIO DO/DR to CIC(YS) give decision on both its points. GROUNDS: A) DO to IC(SP) is not custodian of information held in sub-registry of the Chief Information Commissioner and his online Reply does not say how or why he has disposed of my request that was for information held in that sub-registry and addressed by name to its CPIO. B) DO to IC(SP) has informed for point no. 1 that my letter was received in sub-registry / office of Chief Information Commissioner and no action was taken on it, without saying how he holds that information. He has refused point no. 2, identically as in my request to him. My appeal against his refusal of point no.2 in my request to him is ATTACHED and may be treated part of this appeal if needed.” 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
1122 CICOM/A/P/23/00094 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-06-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00213 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “In the letter it had been mentioned that if I was not satisfied with the information I could submit first Appeal to you. Accordingly I submit this appeal with the request that you would like to look into the matter and favour me with the information I had sought from the CPIO.” 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 Appellant has submitted the first appeal after 30 days of receipt of reply of the CPIO i.e. reply dated 08.05.2023. The First Appeal has been initiated by the appellant on 23.06.2023 which is well beyond 30 days. Appellant has not specified anything which could be taken as sufficient cause for the appellant not filing the appeal in time. So, this appeal cannot be taken into consideration as the time limit for submission of first appeal has already exceeded. The appeal is not admitted as per Subsection (1) of Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1123 CICOM/A/P/23/00093 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-06-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00203 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “It has also been added that if I am not satisfied with the information I may file first appeal to FAA. Accordingly I am submitting this first appeal as the matter related non-compliance of the decision of the Commission for necessary at your level.’ 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 Appellant has submitted the first appeal after 30 days of receipt of reply of the CPIO i.e. reply dated 09.05.2023. The First Appeal has been initiated by the appellant on 23.06.2023 which is well beyond 30 days. Appellant has not specified anything which could be taken as sufficient cause for the appellant not filing the appeal in time. So, this appeal cannot be taken into consideration as the time limit for submission of first appeal has already exceeded. The appeal is not admitted as per Subsection (1) of Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1124 CICOM/A/E/23/00215 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-06-2023 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/2023/00610 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
1125 CICOM/A/E/23/00214 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-06-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00649 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “The reply received by me dated 21.06.2023 mentions that there is no action required at CIC office. This is wrong. The application for prosecution of Smt. Saroj Punhani Informaton Commissioner is marked to CIC and it is mentioned there that CIC is requested to take action as per Section 12(4), 14(1) and 14(2) of the RTI Act -2005. I have not been given information on this aspect, that is what action has been taken by the CIC against Smt. Saroj Punhani as per these Sections. These Sections are regarding superintendence by the CIC and removal, suspension..etc. That information may kindly be provided to me.” 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 (Dak Section) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide information as per available record, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 31.07.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1126 CICOM/A/P/23/00092 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-06-2023 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/23/00271 में सूचना मांगी थी जिसके प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (DR to CIC) ने बिंदु संख्या 1 का जवाब दे दिया गया है परन्तु बिंदु संख्या 2 एवं 3 का कोई जवाब केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (DR to IC UM) ने नहीं दिया है अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी को यह निर्देश दिए जाता है कि वह अपीलकर्ता को आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/23/00271 तहत मांगी गई सूचना दिनांक 02.08.2023 तक अपीलकर्ता को (फ्री ऑफ कॉस्ट) ऑफलाइन प्रेषित की जाये। NA
1127 CICOM/A/E/23/00211 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-06-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00596 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “(Appeal for the complete information sought) FACTS: In request dated 04/06/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00596 I attached a request (for confirmation of a decision u/s 18(2)) that I had addressed to the Central Information Commission constituted u/s 12(1) and sent by separate letters to the Chief and other Information Commissioners. I sought complete information of action taken on the receipt of my letter if received in sub-registry / office of Chief Information Commissioner. On 12/06/23 CPIO D to CIC(YS) has furnished online Reply: It is intimated that the letter dated 15.03.2023 was forwarded to the registry of IC(HS) on 16.03.2023 GROUNDS: CPIO has not provided the complete information. He has informed only the final action without disclosing the decision-making channel or even who decided to forward to the registry of IC(HS) REQUEST: CPIO may please be asked to provide the complete information of action taken on the receipt.” 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
1128 CICOM/A/E/23/00210 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-06-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00723 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “To The FAA, CIC, NEW DELHI. Sir, Reference to a instant and swift BUT A SO CALLED REPLY DATED 28.06.2023 provided by concerned CPIO, CIC, New Delhi, I should also be my moral responsibility that I would raise my instant objections / contention through my First Appeal against such an irresponsible, illegal, otious, illogical and out of the context reply regarding which THE CONTENTION COULD BE SUMMARIZED JUST IN A SINGLE PHRASE AS STATED IN FOLLOWING SENTENCE HEREINAFTER, THAT UPON PERUSAL OF AFORESAID CPIOs SO CALLED REPLY, IT EMANATES QUITE EVIDENT THAT NOT EVEN A SINGLE WORD / PHRASE MENTIONED THEREIN IN THAT ERRONEOUS REPLY IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VERY CONTENT AND CONTEXT OF MY RTI APPLICATION IN QUESTION AS WAS BEING EXACTLY SOUGHT AND HENCE, THIS FIRST APPEAL. IN SIMPLE WORDS, I CAN BE JUSTIFIABLY COMMENTED THAT, WHAT HAD I SOUGHT IN MY RTI APPLICATION IN QUESTION AND WHAT DID HE REPLY IN HIS RESPONSE??? That it is too interesting to mention here that apart from replying irresponsibly, the concerned CPIO had also highlighted the out of the context part of his so called reply as well in order to make it more noticeable and articulate. Kindly do the needful and obliged.” 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 CR-I) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide a point-wise reply to the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 20.07.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1129 CICOM/A/E/23/00212 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-06-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00597 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “(Appeal for complete clear decision) FACTS: In request dated 04/06/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00597 I attached a letter (for confirmation of a decision u/s 18(2)) that I had addressed to the Central Information Commission constituted u/s 12(1) and sent to the Chief and 6 incumbent Information Commissioners. I mentioned the CIC Dak Receipt numbers that I received by emails for my 7 letters and sought complete information of action taken on the receipt of my letter if received in sub-registry / office of Information Commissioner Ms Vanaja N Sarna. On 28/06/2023 CPIO DO IC(VN) has furnished response saying: No such information is available on records. I had also sent my letter by emails to the IDs provided on CIC website. Printout of my email to the ID vanaja.sarna@nic.in provided for Ms Vanaja N Sarna is ATTACHED. GROUNDS: CIC Dak Section / CRU is extremely efficient. Yet, CPIO has conveyed that my letter addressed to Ms Vanaja Sarna received in CRU is not available in the records. CPIO has not said that post addressed to the Information Commissioner received in CRU is always routed through CPIO for record-keeping (or that record of emails received in the account vanaja.sarna@nic.in is kept by CPIO). REQUEST: CPIO may please be asked to inform if he is sole custodian of record of letters addressed to the Information Commissioner (sent by post or by email) and, if he is not, to take necessary assistance to inform about the receipt of my letter in the sub-registry / office of the Information Commissioner.” 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
1130 CICOM/A/E/23/00213 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-06-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00590 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “(Appeal for complete clear decision for point no.1) FACTS: In request dated 04/06/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00590 I attached a letter that I had addressed through Registrar to the Chief and all Information Commissioners and printout of the email by which I had sent it to the email IDs provided for Registrar and the Chief and all Information Commissioners on CIC website. I also mentioned CIC Dak receipt numbers of two subsequent submissions of the same letter to the Registrar. I sought information (1) of receipt of my letter in the sub-registry / office of Information Commissioner Ms Vanaja Sarna and action taken thereon and (2) of any cases followed up through the sub-registry in terms of a CIC meeting decision reproduced in my letter. On 28/06/23 CPIO DO IC(VN) has furnished online Reply saying for both points: No such information is available on records. GROUNDS: CPIO has conveyed for point no.1 that my letter is not available in records in his custody without saying that he is sole custodian of record of letters forwarded by Registrar to the Information Commissioner and received by emails in the email account vanaja.sarna@nic.in (ID provided on CIC website for the information Commissioner). REQUEST: CPIO may please be asked to inform if he is sole custodian of record of letters addressed to the Information Commissioner received through Registrar or by email to the ID vanaja.sarna@nic.in and, if he is not, to please take necessary assistance and inform about the receipt of my letter in the sub-registry / office of the Information Commissioner.” 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