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
1161 CICOM/A/E/23/00184 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-06-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00481 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Respected Sir, The reply of the CPIO is cryptic and bereft of reasons. Hence, I kindly request you sir to look into the matter and do the needful in this regard.” 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
1162 CICOM/A/E/23/00181 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-06-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00479 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “PRIOR CASE (DOPT TRANSFER): On 31.03.2023 CPIO Consultant SO (Admin) informed, on DOPT transfer No. CICOM/R/T/23/00025 for copies of all DOPT letters to CIC on subject of National Coordination Committee: No such information is available on record. In appeal dated No. CICOM/A/E/23/00111, I attached copies of 5 letters later provided by DOPT (dated 15.09.2014 & 31.10.2014 to CIC Secretary, dated 10.03.2016 to CIC ADDITIONAL Secretary, and dated 21.09.2016 & 11.11.2016 to CIC Secretary) and requested confirmation that no such letters are not on record in CIC. On 08.05.2023, in compliance of the decision on my appeal, CPIO informed: The undersigned has revisited the RTI application and find that five letters have already been provided by DOPT. As such, no more information on the above is available. CPIO, after having earlier informed that NO such letters are available, had informed that NO MORE letters are available without making clear that the basis for his modified nil response / if the 5 letters provided by DOPT had subsequently been found on record in CIC. Hence the PRESENT CASE. FACTS: I made request dated 09.05.2023 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00479 for FILE NUMBER AND SUBJECT of (at point no.1 & 2) each file searched by CPIO to inform on 31.03.2023 that no letters are available and on 08.05.2023 that no more letters are available and (at point no.3) CIC file/s in which the 5 letters (ATTACHED) are filed. Alternatively, I requested the information that no CIC file other than the RTI file was visited / revisited by CPIO in the DOPT transfer case. On 07.06.2023 CPIO Consultant SO (Admin) gave decision is form of table listing, under Point No. and Information, the following: 1 Information asked for does not cover under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. 2 Information asked for does not cover under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. 3. Information asked for does not cover under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. GROUNDS: CPIO has wrongly decided that information of FILE NUMBER AND SUBJECT of files is not covered u/s 2(f). CIC files (inclusive of file number and subject) are held by CIC and squarely covered u/s 2(f). CPIO has evaded my alternative request (for the information that CPIO visited / revisited only the RTI file in the DOPT transfer case). CPIO seems to have resorted to misuse of section 2(f) to evade accountability for his (nil) responses in the DOPT transfer case. Unless based on the relevant CIC records, the nil information provided by CPIO is what is not covered u/s 2(f). REQUEST: I request that the CPIO s decision dated 07.06.2023 on my request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00479 be clearly set aside and that CPIO be specifically directed to provide to me either the requested information of file number and subject of files or the alternatively requested information that he visited and revisited only the RTI file in the case of DOPT transfer No. CICOM/R/T/23/00025.” 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
1163 CICOM/A/E/23/00183 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-06-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00570 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “To, The First Appellate Authority Sub:Request to furnish information under section 6(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 Apllication No. CICOM/R/E/23/00570 on dated 25/05/2023, as reply received from CPIO that ( No such information is available on record. However, decisions of the Commission are already available on the website of the Commissions website link https://cic.gov.in/decision.) which is not provide the cleared information. hence it is requested to the CPIO, please provide the information/Guideline in which it is clearly mentioned that Goverment Employees Transfer case related expenses is personal in nature and is not related to any personal activity Hence it can withheld under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005. Hope First Appellate Authority will provide us 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. 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
1164 CICOM/A/E/23/00182 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-06-2023 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 सं. CICOM/R/E/23/00584 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 सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा 2 (च) के प्रावधानों के अनुसार एक जन सूचना अधिकारी केवल सम्बंधित लोक प्राधिकरण के रिकॉर्ड में एक सामग्री के रूप में उपलब्ध सूचना ही प्रदान कर 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
1165 CICOM/A/P/23/00086 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-06-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00267 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating “With in view of what was said above, the undersigned requests that Additional Secretary and First Appellate Authority, Central Information Commission, New Delhi to reply/comment on the issue raised by the undersigned in his RTI Application dated 03-05-2023 that the reply issued by the Central Govt. Department/ Organizations, is considered as an official reply or not?” 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
1166 CICOM/A/P/23/00085 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-06-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00250 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant in the first appeal has raised grounds relating to copy of documents/letters provided by the CPIO with the RTI reply. 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
1167 CICOM/A/E/23/00179 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-06-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00468 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “FACTS: In request dated 06/05/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00468 I attached the CIC website publication u/s 4(1)(b)(x) of RTI Act. For EACH of the 15 post designations disclosed therein, I sought at point-1 the number (figure) of posts (a) sanctioned, (b) currently vacant, (c) currently filled on regular basis, and (d) currently filled otherwise. At point-2 I sought the same information for post designations not disclosed u/s 4(1)(b)(x). At point-3 I sought the number of other current officers / employees. CPIO Consultant SO (Admin) gave decision dated 05/06/23 in form of table listing, under Point No. and Information provided, the following: 1. (a) 160 (b) 09 (c) 55 (d) No such information is available. 2. No such information is available. 3. No such information is available. GROUNDS: A. CPIO has FALSELY said Information provided. CPIO has NOT provided any requested information. Information provided at S.No.1 is unsolicited - TOTAL figures instead of figures for EACH of the 15 disclosed designations. B. CPIO has volunteered FALSE information at S.No.1 & S.No.2. The total (160) informed at S.No.1(a) is FALSE. It is NOT of posts at the 15 disclosed designations and includes also undisclosed designations Registrar, Sr PPS, Hindi Translator and Legal Adviser. Consequently, the (Nil) information provided at S.No.2 is also FALSE and the totals informed at S.No.1(b) & (c) are suspect (or false). The (Nil) information provided at S.No.1(d) and S.No.2 is FALSE. CPIO Consultant SO (Admin) is himself occupying a post on basis other than regular (as are others including Registrar). C. CPIO has volunteered FALSE information at S.No.3. The information sought is of number (figure) of officers/employees in excess of sanctioned strength. The information cannot be not available in CIC. CPIO should have provided the number (figure) of such officers/employees or the number (figure) zero if there are none. REQUEST: I request the correct information for each point of my request, preferably with your decision. Please do not dispose of with direction to revisit / giving CPIO further opportunity to decide u/s 7(1) without affording me further opportunity to appeal u/s 19(1).” 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
1168 CICOM/A/E/23/00180 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-06-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00469 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “FACTS: In request dated 06/05/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00469 I attached the CIC website publication u/s 4(1)(b)(x) of RTI Act (that says that the monthly renumeration of regular officers/staff of CIC is fixed as per the 7th CPC and lists 7th CPC pay levels for 15 post designations). I requested the following information: 1. Names and ACTUAL monthly remuneration of EACH of the regular officers/staff of CIC currently posted at each of the 15 posts for which CIC has published only the 7th CPC pay-levels u/s 4(1)(b)(x). 2. Names, designations and monthly remuneration of EACH officer and of EACH employee of CIC who is NOT regular officer/staff of CIC (whether paid directly or through intermediaries). CPIO Consultant SO (Admin) gave decision dated 05/06/23 in form of table listing, under Point No. and Information provided, the following: 1. Already available on Central Information Commission website URL hrrps://cic.gov.in/rti-disclosures 2. No such information is available GROUNDS: A. CPIO has FALSELY said Information provided. CPIO has NOT provided any requested information. B. CPIO has volunteered FALSE information at S.No.1. URL provided is of an index page. Link for section 4(1)(b)(x) on it is to the page that was attached with my request. Neither has name and actual remuneration of any regular officer/staff. C. CPIO has volunteered FALSE information at S.No.2. CIC has officers and employees who are not regular officers/staff. CPIO is himself one. They are obviously being paid. Information of the payments is obviously available in CIC (and in case at least of CPIO also with CPIO). D. CPIO has OBSTRUCTED the requested information. In end-note in my request I had requested processing in / with assistance u/s 5(4) from the pay and accounts offices and other concerned offices of CIC, specifically stating that CPIO Consultant SO (Admin) could not even inform all officers and employees on my prior request. CPIO has, nevertheless made false disposal with false remarks. E. The information sought is liable to have been published u/s 4(1)(b)(x). REQUEST: I request the correct and complete information for both points of my request, preferably with your decision. Please do not dispose of with direction to revisit / giving CPIO further opportunity to decide u/s 7(1) without affording me further opportunity to appeal u/s 19(1).” 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
1169 CICOM/A/E/23/00178 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 05-06-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00467 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “FACTS: I made request dated 06/05/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00467 for the following 2 points of information: 1. Copy of the complete audio record (or any other record) of the intra-video-conference hearings for my 3 cases listed from 12:00-12:30 on 01/05/23 before IC Ms Vanaja Sarna that were held by 2 ICs from around 12:45 hrs to around 12:55 hrs in my presence and may have resumed later. 2. Name of the other IC who held the hearings with IC Ms Vanaja Sarna. A screenshot, or information in any other form, may also be provided to indicate which IC was seated where in the video that I was seeing. On 05/06/23 CPIO & Dy Registrar for Ms Vanaja N Sarna furnished the following online Reply to the two points: Reply to Point No. 1 - It is stated that audio/ video recording of the hearings is not done at the Central Information Commission. Accordingly, the same cannot be provided. Reply to Point No. 2 - No such information is available on the record. Reply to point no.2 was perplexing. The Deputy Registrar had to know who the other IC was. I called his office for clarification. It seems that THE SECOND PERSON WHO WAS THROUGHOUT THE HEARING ADDRESSING ME AS IF SHE WAS AN INFORMATION COMMISSIONER WAS IN FACT SOME PERSONAL STAFF and office of Deputy Registrar has no information / record of which personal staff joins the IC when in the room from which remote hearing is held. In this curious situation, this appeal is only for the information for point no.1 of my request. GROUNDS: A) Denial of audio recording for the reason that it is not done at the CIC is untenable. CPIO has not said where the recordings are done (and has also not said that they are not done at all). The recordings, wherever done and kept, would be property of CIC. If they are done and kept by some private party contracted by CIC, they can be accessed by CIC under its contract under contract law - i.e., they fall squarely within the definition u/s 2(f) of information held by CIC. If they are done and kept in some public authority, CIC can likewise access them under the applicable legal arrangement now because it did not make timely transfer u/s 6(3). B) Reply to point no.1 is incomplete. I have specifically requested audio record OR ANY OTHER RECORD of the hearings. CPIO has nothing of any other record (e.g., proper stenographic record). REQUEST: Please have the duly requested audio recording or any other record of the hearings of my cases provided to me. I also request signed order 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
1170 CICOM/A/E/23/00177 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-06-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00295 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that no response within the time limit. 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 15.06.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA