| SNo. | Registration No | Appellate Authority Name | Received date | Reply Appeal | Reply Doc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1131 | CICOM/A/E/23/00209 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 27-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00675 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Respected Sir My RTI Application Registration No.CICOM/R/E/23/00675 pertaining to Airports Authority of India. So, you are humbly requested please transferred its Airports Authority of India for provide the information under RTI Act.2005.†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. As per the Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the applicant shall file information request with the concerned Public Authority which holds the 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 |
| 1132 | CICOM/A/E/23/00208 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 27-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00554 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Sir, The attachment is empty and there is no enclosure of any policy or circular annexed with the reply. When you open the PDF file annexed in the RTI Reply, you would find that it merely states following statement, where as the entire attachment is blank except the following statement written in it: " "Please find enclosed herewith a copy of office order No. 34/02/2016-CIC/Admn dated 23-09-2016 regarding CICs policy on complaints.copy of the PDF annexed by the CPIO has been annexed with the instant first appeal for your reference. Kindly provide the copy of policy on complaint against sitting Information commissioners, as refered to by the concerned PIO in his reply letter to the RTI Application ref No. CICOM/R/E/23/00334 dated 01.04.2023 Kindly ensure that the purported policy deals with complaints against sitting Information commissioners and not only administrative complaints, as stated by concerned CPIO in his reply to my aforementioned RTI application dated 01.04.2023.†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 (Admin Section) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide enclosure as mentioned by the CPIO in the RTI reply as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 28.07.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1133 | CICOM/A/E/23/00206 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 26-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00562 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “FACTS: I had received CIC Notices dated 17.04.2023 of hearings for 3 of my cases. None was issued to respondents as named by me in my case. Each said at the end: By order of the Commission. None specified the order of the Commission / reason for issuing or not issuing notice to respondents as named by me. On 29.05.2023 I made request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00562 for copies of (1) orders of the Commission by which the 3 Notices were issued to me and (2) any applicable prior / general orders of the Commission. On 26.06.2023 CPIO DO IC(VN) disposed of my request with online Reply saying point-wise for each point: No such information is available on the record. GROUNDS: A. I am entitled u/s 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act to be provided, suo-motu by the public authority (CIC), the reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions that affect me. Decisions to issue or not issue Notice to respondents as named by me in my cases affect me. Reasons there-for were not provided to me suo-motu u/s 4(1)(d) and to know them I had to apply u/s 6(1). B. The 3 Notices that were issued to me were not issued under any provision of law and said that they were by order of the Commission. If neither any specific nor any general orders of the Commission are available on the record, then the public authority (CIC) gave to me in its 3 Notices for statutory process for my cases false information and misled me into wasting my effort on the present request u/s 6(1). REQUEST: Please provide to me the requested copies of the orders of the Commission by which the 3 Notices dated 17.04.2023 were issued to me by the public authority (CIC). If the said orders are not held by or under the control of the public authority (CIC) etc, i.e., if they were falsely alleged in its said Notices, consider having issued to me corrigenda for the Notices. I request decision by signed speaking order.†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 |
| 1134 | CICOM/A/E/23/00207 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 26-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00546 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “I am filing this first appeal against CPIO reply in RTI request CICOM/R/E/23/00546. Details as follows Information sought as follows “List of complaints and appeals that CIC admitted from 12-05-2022 to 06-03-2022 and their corresponding decision announcement dates in chronological order date wise. expecting reply in columns. S No Complaint/Appeal number Admitted on Decision Announced on Information seeking through this RTI concerns life and liberty of a person pertained to FIR 069 of 2019 of Gachibowli police station Hyderabad,filing under the Right to Information Act , 2005 section 6(1) read with Section 7(1). Expecting reply within 48 Hours.†CPIO reply as follows “Point No 1 first part’s requisite information is available on Commission website and may see on Commission website link cic.gov.in->MIS Reports->Monthly Report on Registered and Return Cases->Monthly Report on Registered and Return Cases (From June 2018). Point No 1 second part’s requisite information is available on Commission website and may see on Commission website link cic.gov.in->Decisions->Decision (New) after 10 th September 2016.†However, when I try to login into cic.gov.in (https://rtionline.gov.in) to download the list,it says contact “Kinldy Contact to the rticall-dopt@nic.in†. I am unable to download the required information. It is not known whether requested information is completely available or not. hence, Please provide the information . I further submit that there is typo in RTI application it is mentioned “List of complaints and appeals that CIC admitted from 12-05-2022 to 06-03-2022†,actual dates 12-05-2022 to 06-03-2023. please correct the same.†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, collate or segregate information that is not a part of the record. The information once published in public domain may not be treated as information held by a particular public authority. 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 |
| 1135 | CICOM/A/E/23/00205 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 25-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00477 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that 1) In my RTI Application to Honble CIC, dated: 09-05-2023, of Reg. No.: CICOM/R/E/23/00477, it was SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED to provide the NAME AND DESIGNATION OF THE OFFICIAL of Honble CIC, WHO HAD COMMUNICATED AN ABSOLUTELY FALSIFIED INFORMATION to Honble IC, Ms. Vanaja N. Sarna, which is written in her final decision dated: 18-11-2022, in my case of File No. CIC/BSNLD/A/2021/643612, that: / The appellant requested for telephonic hearing............/ along with date on which the falsified information was communicated. HOWEVER THE REQUESTED RTI INFORMAION HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED by the CPIO Shri, A. K. Assija, in his reply dated: 07-06-2023 attached as Annexure_FA. 2) Also as per my RTI, NO CERTIFIED OFFICIAL DOCUMENT HAS BEEN SUPPLIED TO ME, i.e., file noting or any written official communication between officials and Honble Information Commissioner of CIC, to prove the claims made by the CPIO in his RTI reply dated: 07-06-2023. Kindly instruct the CPIO to comply with these two RTI points raised. 3) The suppression of aforesaid two crucial RTI information raises doubt about the claims of the CPIO, Shri, A. K. Assija, in his reply dated: 07-06-2023, as it lacks credibility, due to the following reasons:- a) It is claimed in RTI reply that Honble IC, Ms. Vanaja N. Sarna, had allowed telephonic hearing on 02-11-2022, although I had specifically requested for a web-link for my appearance in-person during hearing in my emailed application dated: 31-10-2022. b) However I have received an email on 07-11-2022, 16:34 Hrs., FROM CIC’s OFFICIAL DOMAIN (@nic.in) about change of my hearing venue from Kolkata to New Delhi. NO OTHER EMAIL HAS BEEN RECEIVED from Honble CIC on 07-11-2022. Intriguingly, CPIO claims to have sent me two emails, one on the SAME DATE of 07-11-2022, but at 7:20 PM and another on 15-11-2022, about approval for my telephonic hearing, which I NEVER RECEIVED IN MY EMAIL ADDRESS. Suspiciously, these emails are sent using a PUBLIC DOMAIN (@gmail.com), in VIOLATION OF the mandatory instruction of Honble CIC, vide- F.No.28/JS (Law)/Email/CIC/2016, where it is COMPULSORY TO SEND OFFICIAL EMAILS BY OFFICIALS of Honble CIC using their OFFICIAL DOMAIN ONLY. MYSTERIOUSLY, IF TELEPHONIC HEARING IS ALLOWED ON 02-11.2022, THEN WHY OFFICIALS OF HONBLE CIC SENT THE EMAIL FOR HEARING VENUE CHANGE FROM KOLKATA TO NEW DELHI ON 07-11-2022 ?? c) Shocked by the harsh decision by Honble CIC on my venue change from Kolkata to New Delhi, I made a SECOND REQUEST for virtual appearance from my home, as per my email sent on 10-11-2022 to Honble CIC, but NO REPLY HAS BEEN RECEIVED EVER. Therefore it is undoubtedly proved that the claims of the CPIO in RTI reply are DISTRUSTFUL AND NEEDS THOROUGH INVESTIGATION FOR REVEALING THE TRUTH. Consequently, my in-person appearance got foiled, the hearing that took place on 18-11-2022 was Ex-parte and the final order of Honble IC, contains falsified information about 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 |
| 1136 | CICOM/A/E/23/00204 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 24-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01037 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “As I asked information to NTRO till not provided me, Request to instruct NTRO to provide the information because recruitment of any department under comes not national secret and comes in RTI act.pl provide the information as I asked in past.†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 (RTI Cell) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide reply to the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 17.07.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1137 | CICOM/A/P/23/00091 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 23-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00275 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating “Madam, Kindly refer speed post sent by me vide ED113701628IN- 10.05.2023- Delivered on 15.05.2023 & as I have not received any reply even a lapse of 30 days, hence the reminder. †DECISION OF 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 CIC-YS) replied to the RTI application on the RTI online portal on 22.05.2023 and did not send the offline reply to the applicant. As the RTI application was filed by the applicant by offline mode, CPIO(DR to CIC-YS) is directed to revisit the RTI application and reply to the applicant by offline mode as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 21.07.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1138 | CICOM/A/E/23/00203 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 23-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00488 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that no response within the time limit. I seek the following information in first appeal for the original application number : CICOM/R/E/23/00488 in which i sought for the below information, i have not received any response,Kindly look into the below and furnish me with the requested information. I have earlier applied for second appeal with Central Information Commission which was diarised on 24-01-2021 with diary number CIC/SCRLS/A/2021/601762 with original RTI application number : SCRSB/R/E/20/00369 dated 07/11/2020 and its decsion was also announced by the Honble Central Information Commissioner Sri.Uday Mahurkar on 25.04.2022 . Kindly furnish me with the copy of Second Appeal Application that was made by me to the Central Information Commission that was diarised with diary number CIC/SCRLS/A/2021/601762 on 24-01-2021, which i need to submit in the court for Legal purposes The above requested copy of second appeal application may be furnished in digital copy or preferably in Hard copies, I will bear with whatever the costs that are accrued for furnishing of the requested information. Thanks & Regards, Hope to hear from you soon in this Matter, Please. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal and the RTI application have been perused. CPIO (DR to IC-UM) is directed to reply to the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 17.07.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1139 | CICOM/A/E/23/00202 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 23-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/23/00052 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “FACTS: No. CICOM/R/T/23/00052 dated 05/06/23 is transfer to CIC by DOPT of my request for (1) copies of and related to a letter of the Chief Information Commissioner cited in CIC Annual Report for 2012-2013 and (2) the dates on which the said Annual Report was laid before both Houses of Parliament. On 22/06/23 MR Section CPIO has disposed of the transfer receipt with Commission reply, combined for both points: Information is not available. GROUNDS: A) The Commission Reply baldly conveying that CIC has none of the information sought is false / frivolous. It is especially so insofar as the letter of the Chief IC cited in a CIC Annual Report is concerned. CIC Annual Reports are statutory official publications and papers cited in official publications are permanent records (S. No. 7. Appendix-10.2 B, Central Secretariat Manual of Office Procedure 2022). The letter in question is a permanent record, liable to be transferred in due course to the National Archives of India. Its unauthorised removal / destruction is liable to be immediately acted upon and reported to the Director General of Archives u/s 7 of the Public Records Act 1993. The Commission Reply makes no mention even of how unavailability has been ascertained, forget referring to required action u/s 7 of the Public Records Act. B) The Commission Reply disposes of my request receive by transfer without providing either the information or a reason from u/s 8 or 9 for not providing it (i.e., the only two options open for disposal u/s 7(1)). I have a right to the mandatory decision u/s 7(1). To count as decision u/s 7(1), the so-called Reply (a word that occurs nowhere in the RTI Act) ought to at least have been furnished point-wise and with specificity. REQUEST: I request point-wise response specifying the information not available and how its unavailability was ascertained. In case of the letter of the Chief Information Commissioner cited in CIC Annual report, if unavailability has been duly ascertained, I request that information of action u/s 7 of the Public Records Act be included in support of the unavailability claim. I request signed decision on official letterhead of the Commission on this appeal against Commission 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 |
| 1140 | CICOM/A/P/23/00090 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 21-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00630 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “I am to invite your kind attention towards the RTI application dated 19.11.2022 submitted to PIO CIC New Delhi and to say that the requisite information has not provided by the PIO within the time period, It is deem to be refused.†DECISION OF 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 03.07.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |