| SNo. | Registration No | Appellate Authority Name | Received date | Reply Appeal | Reply Doc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1141 | CICOM/A/E/23/00199 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 21-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00621 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating point No. 1, 5, 6 & 10. For Point no. 1 & 6 The CPIO knowingly suppressed the desired information and also given misleading reply. In the RTI Application I never sought when the RTI Application/RTI First Appeal was received at RTI Cell. For Point 5 & 10 The CPIO had given evasive reply suppressing the desired information. I wanted a copy of reply letter/Appellate Order which the CPIO did not provide rather given misleading information. 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 Point No. 1, 5, 6 & 10 of the RTI application and provide information as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 26.07.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1142 | CICOM/A/E/23/00201 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 21-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00647 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “I am filing appeal under the following ground For the point No (1) the CPIO replied that, A compliance report vide diary no. 157343 related to file no CIC/MEDCI/A/2017/110434 is attached herewith. However, in the reply the above mentioned compliance report is not attached. The reply given by CPIO has only one page, and it is not including the compliance report mentioned by him ( copy of the reply received from CPIO is attached as pdf ) Hence, the CPIO has given a incomplete/misleading reply to my RTI application Hence I request you to provide me the full copy of compliance report (vide diary no. 157343 related to file no CIC/MEDCI/A/2017/110434) free of cost 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 (DR to IC-HS) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide a copy of compliance report as mentioned by the CPIO in the RTI reply for point no. 1 as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 17.07.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1143 | CICOM/A/E/23/00200 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 21-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00535 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Ground of Apeal As per information supplied under RTI Act Dated 20 June 2023 there is no information about file notings in file submited by sebi to CIC so the information Provided it preatains to settlement matter comes in valid since without submitting file notings information cannot be supplied under RTI which counts incomplete information on Hearing Without mentioning file notings by CIC order passed by COmes irrelevant†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 |
| 1144 | CICOM/A/E/23/00198 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 20-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/23/00049 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “FACTS: In request dated 20.04.2023 to DOPT I said, in preface, that 19 CIC Notices of Hearings that I received 2022-23 use the phrase Hon-ble Information Commissioner and on my request dated 19.04.2023 to CIC for copy of the instrument / decision by which the honorific has been conferred CIC CPIO (CR-I) furnished Reply obtained u/s 5(4) from CIC Admin Section: No such administrative orders/guidelines have been issued. I requested the same information if held by or under control of DOPT. (I also filed appeal against the decision of CIC CR-I CPIO). My request to DOPT was forwarded to IR Division CPIO and also transferred to CIC as No. CICOM/R/T/23/00049. On 26.05.2023 DOPT CPIO furnished nil response that DOPT FAA confirmed in decision dated 19.06.2023. My appeal against the decision of CIC CPIO CR-I was also disposed of on 19.06.2023 with the following decision: 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. On 20.06.2023, CIC Admin Section CPIO has disposed of the transfer receipt No. CICOM/R/T/23/00049 by furnishing the following information: No such information is available. GROUNDS: A. Admin Section CPIO has changed his response. His prior response, through CR-I CPIO, was part of (preface in) the present request. It was limited to administrative orders/guidelines not being there. Now he has informed more expansively that no information is available. He has not said why he has changed his response and has not specified if and how he has ascertained that CIC has no information at all about the honorific used in thousands of CIC Notices. B. In the prior appeal (No. CICOM/A/E/23/00160) I had submitted that the information sought, being related to Notice of hearing, concerns office of Registrar and not of JS (Admin). The online FAA decision does not indicate either of those senior officers having been consulted and vaguely conveys, WITHOUT SPECIFICALLY DECIDING, that the public authority CIC holds or controls no information about the honorific being used in thousands of CIC Notices. REQUEST: Please confirm or reject the decision of CPIO with SPECIFIC reference to the requested information. I again request signed decision 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 |
| 1145 | CICOM/A/E/23/00196 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 19-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00446/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that no response within the time limit. “No reply pertaining to point no. 1 i.e. Action taken by CIC on Diary Number 116726 dated 11.4.2023 for CIC/ALSOI/A/2023/617108 has been received.†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 point no. 1 of 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 |
| 1146 | CICOM/A/E/23/00197 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 19-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00603 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “FACTS: In request no. CICOM/R/E/23/00603 dated 04-06-23 I attached para-3.4.1 to 3.4.3 of the CIC Annual Report for the year 2012-2013 and sought copy of the letter no. 359/CIC(SM)/2012 dated 11-5-2012 mentioned therein. M&R Section CPIO gave decision vide F. No. MR-14011/1/2020-MR-CIC/Part-II dated 19-06-23 saying: Commission reply is as under: Information is not available. GROUNDS: CPIO has denied information by asserting that it is not available - vaguely, without disclosing the officers from whom assistance was taken / the records that were searched or even if it is the file that is not available or the letter issued therein. Further, the vague assertion that a CIC letter cited in a CIC Annual Report is not available in CIC is patently incorrect. CIC Annual Reports are statutory official publications. Papers cited in official publications are permanent records (S. No. 7. Appendix-10.2 B, CSMOP 2022). CIC letter dated 11-5-2012, cited in a CIC Annual Report, is a permanent record that CIC cannot neither have weeded out nor, as yet, transferred to the National Archives of India - i.e., the information sought has to be available in CIC. REQUEST: Copy of the CIC letter no. 359/CIC(SM)/2012 dated 11-5-2012 cited in the CIC Annual Report for the year 2012-2013 may kindly be provided to me at the earliest.†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 |
| 1147 | CICOM/A/E/23/00195 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 18-06-2023 | Ref RTI- CICOM/R/E/23/00611 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Kindly provide name of public authority which is most likely to have video recording as asked in original RTI application.†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 |
| 1148 | CICOM/A/E/23/00194 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 17-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00506 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Please allow my appeal and direct the CPIO to provide the entire information free of charge or immediately provide the entire information free of charge.†DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point 1 & 7 – 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 2 to 6, 8 & 9 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 |
| 1149 | CICOM/A/P/23/00089 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 16-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00238 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating “The RTI reply dated 24-05-2023 provided by your office is against the Right to Information Act, 2005, enacted by the Government of India – transparency in administration by making the government more open to public scrutiny. Empowered the people to assess government acts, decision to ensure that these are consistent with the principles of public interest, good governance and justice. (ii) P.I.O. not provided the certified copy of “the matter is under examination†(ii) RTI reply dated 24-05-2023 is without the address and contact number of the CPIO. (iii) No outward no. and date is seen in the said reply dated 24-05-2023 (iv) P.I.O., deliberately hid and concealed the subject matter, Diary no and Date etc in the said reply dated 24-05-2023. †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 |
| 1150 | CICOM/A/E/23/00193 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 15-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00625 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that (Appeal against incomplete decision and incomplete information) FACTS: In request dated 08/06/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00625 I attached second page of the part from F. No. CR 1-12/5/2019-CR1-CIC in the CIC website publication u/s 4(1)(b)(iii) and sought 6 points of information related to the process of handling a complaint or second appeal in the Commission that is disclosed therein. On 14/06/23 CPIO DR CR-1 has disposed of my request with a partial decision vide letter dated 13/06/23. GROUNDS: A. CPIO has not decided my request points no. 4, 5 & 6 at all. B. CPIO has provided incomplete / unclear information for my other 3 points: (i) For point no.1, CPIO has not informed date of approval for publication u/s 4(1)(b)(iii). Instead CPIO has said: the date itself is th file read CR-1-12/05/2019-CR1-CIC - perhaps implying that the date is 12/05/2019 whereas in the CSMOP file numbering systems 2019 would be the year but 12 would be standard head number and 05 the number of the file opened under that head in 2019). (ii) For point no.2 CPIO has not informed categories of the CLASSIFICATION mentioned u/s 4(1)(b)(iii)). (For second part of point no.2, instead of simply saying that the 3 categories guessed by me are not amongst the CLASSIFICATION categories, CPIO seems to have asked me to try and guess again). (iii) For point no.3, CPIO has not provided copy of the decision to use identifier C for complaints and identifier A for 2nd Appeal in case file numbers when the cases are not distinguished thereafter. Instead CPIO has confirmed / repeated that: There is no separate series for Complaints and Appeals but they distinguished by the Word A or C in nthe file number. (For first part of point no.3 CPIO has obviously mistakenly said that the numbering system (and not just file numbers) is generated by the Software and has informed that offline and online cases are assigned numbers with different starting digits 1 and 6) REQUEST: I request decision on my points no. 4, 5 and 6, the date sought in my point no.1, the categories sought in my point no.2 and the copy sought in my point no.3. For first part of point no.3 file numbering system identifiers other than C & A (complaints and appeals) and 1 & 6 (offline and online), IF ANY, may also please be informed. 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 |