| SNo. | Registration No | Appellate Authority Name | Received date | Reply Appeal | Reply Doc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1151 | CICOM/A/E/23/00192 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 14-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00622 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “To, The First Appellate Authority Sub: Request to furnish information under section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on the following questions/points. Sir, You are requested to furnish the following information/documents. Refer to our RTI Application No. CICOM/R/E/23/00622 on dated 08/06/2023, in this connection we are received CPIO reply in which the information denied to furnish and stated by CPIO that The Central Information Commission deals with Second Appeals/Complaints filed against the decisions of First Appellate Authority of a Public Authority. In this connection, it is requested to First Appellate Authority to provide us the information/Documents in which it has been mentioned that Government Official Transfer/posting case Expenses details can not be provided under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005. As we are seeking the information from Govt. Organization of Shri Atul Thora who was posted from BARC - Mumbai to HWBF Talcher in Public Intrest and during his transfer we need the expenses details as he claimed and which was denied to provide the information by HWBF - Talcher PIO under section 8(1)(j). Hence First Appellate Authority requested to provide the information / Documents in which it has been mentioned that as the above information belong to personal in nature and under section 8(1)(j) it can not be provided the required information. In the sametime it is also requested to First Appellate Authority to provide the conformation documents which will certify that the following information can not be provided under the section of 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005. 1.Total amount Incurred in Goverment Employee Transfer.related 2.Details of Expenditure claimed Employee and Final Settlement done by Account Section. A) Indicating composite grant allowance,Transportation charges for peronal effects B)2/4wheeler charges 3) Air/rail T/C charges for him and his family members and Taxi charges claimed from Residence to Airport/Railway Station. 4.Details of Transportation bill submitted Hope First Appellate Authority will provide the require information soon.†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 should file information request with the concerned Public Authority which holds the information. However, the appellant may file the First Appeal with the concerned 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 |
| 1152 | CICOM/A/E/23/00190 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 13-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00312 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “To The FAA, CIC. Dear Madam/Sir, Kindly refer to the enclosed pdf. This first appeal is filed with also detailing the grounds to condone the delay by observing the proviso below Section 19 (1) of the RTI Act I am seeking the personal hearing through the video conferencing mode and the entire details along with the supportive documents are attached for your ready reference. Thanking you.†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 26.04.2023. The First Appeal has been initiated by the appellant on 13.06.2023 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 |
| 1153 | CICOM/A/E/23/00191 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 13-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00583 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Where is the name and designation of the staff who processed Diary Number 625103, received on 23-05-2023? This implies incomplete information. Under point 2, CPIO said that request for condonation of delay is not in proper format. Request for condonation of delay received on 12 May 2023 to comply with communication dated 28/04.2023 in respect of diary number-620495/2023. But Deputy registrar CR-1 on 15 May 2023 sought a copy of first appeal and index of documents. Now the same request of condonation of delay attached to the second appeal is not in proper format. Here integrity of staff who processed is under cloud.†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 13.07.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1154 | CICOM/A/P/23/00088 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 12-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00186 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating “First Appeal against misconceived reply of my RTI application. My Second Appeal was sent by registered post RU274915015IN, Dated 23-10-2018. The CPIO was in so hest that in his reply that he searched on 23-10-2018, while my Second Appeal was posted on 23-10-2018 and could have been received on 30-10-2018. CPIO should have searched between 23-10-2018 to 30-10-2018 for my Second Appeal. His reply is not acceptable. That I have received his letter on 17-04-2023 but I was suffering from Fever & Weakness, so I could not applied with in time, when I recovered on 05-06-2023 I am sending my First Appeal, a delay of 19 days has occurred due to illness, which should be condoned and my First Appeal be heard and decided on Merit. †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 |
| 1155 | CICOM/A/E/23/00186 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 12-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00591 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “(Appeal for decision on request point no.2) FACTS: In request dated 04/06/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00591 I attached a letter that I had sent through the Registrar to the Chief and all other Information Commissioners and sought information (1) of receipt of my letter and any action taken thereon in the sub-registry / office of Information Commissioner Mr Neeraj Kumar Gupta and (2) of any cases followed up through the sub-registry in terms of a CIC meeting decision reproduced in my letter. On 12/06/23 CPIO-DR-IC(NG) has furnished response informing at S.No.1 about receipt of my letter and at S.No.2 that no further action was taken. GROUNDS: CPIO has not decided point no.2 of my request. REQUEST: CPIO may please be asked to provide for my request point no.2 the information of cases, if any. (Minutes of Meeting containing - in para 6(c) - the decision reproduced in my letter are ATTACHED for ready reference).†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 |
| 1156 | CICOM/A/E/23/00187 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 12-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00598 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/23/00598 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 Information Commissioner Mr Neeraj Kumar Gupta. On 12/06/23 CPIO-DR-IC(NG) has furnished response informing that my letter was received and saying that: As the matter did not pertain to this Registry, therefore no further action was taken. GROUNDS: CPIO has not provided the complete information. He has informed only the final decision without disclosing the decision-making channel or even who decided (that the matter did not pertain to the Registry and the request required no further action). 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 |
| 1157 | CICOM/A/E/23/00188 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 12-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00592 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that (Appeal for decision on point no.2 and complete clear decision for point no.1) FACTS: In request dated 04/06/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00592 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 Mr Suresh Chandra 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 12/06/2023 CPIO DO to IC(SC) has furnished online Reply: No communication mentioned in the above RTI was received by the undersigned CPIO nor was it related to his area of work. GROUNDS: CPIO has not decided point no.2 of my request that is unrelated to receipt of my letter. For point no.1 CPIO has not given clear response. CPIO has stated that no communication was received by him without saying that letters submitted through Registrar to the Information Commissioner are routed through CPIO and that the email account sureshchandra@nic.in (ID provided on CIC website for the information Commissioner) is handled by CPIO. REQUEST: CPIO may please be asked to: (a) clearly inform for point no.1 about receipt of my letter (by my email to the ID sureshchandra@nic.in or from the Registrar) in the sub-registry / office of the Information Commissioner (instead of by CPIO), and (b) to provide for point no.2 the information of cases, if any. (Minutes of Meeting containing - in para 6(c) - the decision reproduced in my letter are ATTACHED for ready reference). 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 |
| 1158 | CICOM/A/E/23/00189 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 12-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00599 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/23/00599 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 Mr Suresh Chandra. On 12/06/2023 CPIO DO to IC(SC) has furnished online Reply: No such letter, nor any of the diary Nos mentioned in the RTI application, nor the above mentioned email was received by the undersigned CPIO. I had not mentioned in my request that I had also sent my letter by emails to the IDs provided on CIC website. Printout of my email to the ID sureshchandra@nic.in provided for Mr Suresh Chandra is ATTACHED. GROUNDS: CPIO has stated that my letter and email was not received by him without saying that post addressed to the Information Commissioner is always routed through CPIO by the CRU and that the email account sureshchandra@nic.in is handled by CPIO. REQUEST: CPIO may please be asked to inform about receipt of my letter (by my email to the ID sureshchandra@nic.in or from the CRU) in the sub-registry / office of the Information Commissioner (instead of by CPIO).†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 |
| 1159 | CICOM/A/E/23/00185 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 10-06-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00435/2 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that no response within the time limit. “A: RELIEF SOUGHT: (i) Kindly arrange compliance with the decision dated 15/03/2023 of IC Sh Uday Mahurkar w.r.t Second Appeal No. CIC/SORLY/A/2022/605498-UM meant for compliance within one month. Till 10/06/2023, compliance has not been intimated/provided by the respondents (Railway) who have caused criminally fraudulent retirement of appellant from 10/05/2023 onwards informed to AS/CIC Ms Roop Kaur Avtar vide 25th attachment to email dated 12/05/2023 sent to her. The email dated 12/05/2023 is supporting document to RTI appeal CICOM/A/E/23/00151 dated 12/05/2023 rejected on 05/06/2023 by unknown criminal as no ink/digitally signed decision was attached with the disposal of RTI appeal (ii) Kindly transfer/refer this RTI appeal to Railway, CVC and CBI w.r.t CVC Complaint 17974/2023 dated 08/06/2023 B. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: No response within time limits C. FACTS Kindly note the following RTI appeal (edited/updated text): Final Status of CICOM/A/E/23/00151 Applicant Name praveen poddar Date of receipt 12/05/2023 Request Filed With Central Information Commission CA: RELIEF SOUGHT: Transfer of this RTI appeal with appropriate inputs to (i) CVO/CIC w.r.t CVC Complaint 13962/2023 dated 28/04/2023 against Chief Information Commissioner Sh Y K Sinha who as per media reports dated 10/05/2023 (Shillong Times) stated that there are certain mischievous elements that try to use the RTI Act to harass and blackmail public authorities. Similar grounds were used by CVC and Railway in the Year 2017 to cause the issuance of a minor penalty chargesheet dated 24/11/2017 and resultant fraud punishment dated 25/04/2018 of CENSURE with no entry in the service records of appellant provided by N F Railway, ICF/Chennai, and Eastern Railway. (ii) CVC w.r.t online RTI request CVCOM/R/T/23/00050 dated 28/04/2023 shown to be under process since 01/05/2023 with Director/CVC Ms Priyanka Singh who has been dealing with RTI requests and CVC complaints of the appellant in a criminal manner since June 2021 (iii) CBI w.r.t online RTI appeal CBIMH/A/E/23/00068 dated 09/05/2023 (iv) Railway w.r.t online RTI appeal MORLY/A/E/23/00411 dated 02/05/2023 B. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: (i) No ink/digitally signed document from PIO is found attached with the disposal of the RTI request meaning thereby that an unknown criminal is dealing/operating online RTI requests as seen from the Year 2014 onwards. The signature shown in the document is an image that is not valid in an online medium. (ii) Name of specific official dealing/processing Diary Number 613477 has not been provided. (iii) With respect to the registration of complaint sought to vide Diary Number 613477 dated 14/03/2023, there have been repeated attempts since 07/02/2023 to return it w.r.t earlier Diary Numbers 606840 and 612173. Even after compliance with observations in the last two Diary Numbers, the complaint has not been registered with criminal intentions.†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 12.07.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1160 | CICOM/A/P/23/00087 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 09-06-2023 | आर. टी. आई. आवेदन, पà¥à¤°à¤¦à¤¾à¤¨ की गई सूचना à¤à¤µà¤‚ पà¥à¤°à¤¥à¤® अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकरà¥à¤¤à¤¾ के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/2023/00174 में सूचना मांगी थी जिसके पà¥à¤°à¤¤à¤¿à¤‰à¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤° में केंदà¥à¤°à¥€à¤¯ जन सूचना अधिकारी दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ पà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤·à¤¿à¤¤ की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤µà¤§à¤¾à¤¨à¥‹à¤‚ à¤à¤µà¤‚ मांगी गई सूचना के अनà¥à¤¸à¤¾à¤° ही है। अतः सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा 2 (च) के पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤µà¤§à¤¾à¤¨à¥‹à¤‚ के अनà¥à¤¸à¤¾à¤° à¤à¤• जन सूचना अधिकारी केवल समà¥à¤¬à¤‚धित लोक पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤§à¤¿à¤•à¤°à¤£ के रिकॉरà¥à¤¡ में à¤à¤• सामगà¥à¤°à¥€ के रूप में उपलबà¥à¤§ सूचना ही पà¥à¤°à¤¦à¤¾à¤¨ कर सकता है। अतः केंदà¥à¤°à¥€à¤¯ जन सूचना अधिकारी दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ पà¥à¤°à¤¦à¤¾à¤¨ की गई सूचना तथà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¤à¥à¤®à¤• है और इसमें पà¥à¤°à¤¥à¤® अपीलीय अधिकारी के हसà¥à¤¤à¤•à¥à¤·à¥‡à¤ª की कोई आवशà¥à¤¯à¤•à¤¤à¤¾ नहीं है। | NA |