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
1171 CICOM/A/E/23/00175 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-06-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00461 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “The grounds of Appeal are as follows: 1) Because the Ld. CPIO has with great diligence in this particular matter concluded specifying point-wise that the preponderance of information which I requested is either (i) not available on the records of the Commission or else (ii) is not accessible to him. 2) Because for the few remaining information where CPIO reply is not clear, I shall revisit it by filing fresh RTI applications on the lines CPIO has indicated for points 2(a), 2(c),2(e), 2(f), 2(g), (2h) . Accordingly there is no need to ask the CPIO to revisit his reply. 3) Because in view of the non-adverserial and seemingly diligent reply of Ld. CPIO I am not pressing for a personal hearing in this first appeal, and simply requesting for written confirmation of his information, as I am specifying point wise in my prayers below, by his senior officer (the First Appellate Officer). 4) Because it seems the Ld. CPIO is unable to access the information which I had requested, due to his employment status as a Consultant to a specific sub-Registry of an Information Commissioner. Hence the information requested may also be kindly universally accessed and/or confirmed by the Ld. FAA who incidentally is also Head of Dept for the Commission. 5) Because I am a 3rd party in the matter since material before the Cabinet Committee for UIDAI would contain many submissions of mine submitted in confidence, which I am interested to access / oppose. Accordingly, PRAYERS 1. Kindly provide me the written confirmation on the letterhead of this Commission, duly signed and sealed on behalf of the public authority, for the following specific information provided point-wise by the Ld. CPIO. i) That for point 1(a) there is no record available of notification(s) issued by the High Court of Delhi under the Delhi High Court Videoconferencing Rules 2021 notifying the Central Information Commission as a tribunal for purposes of the said rules. ii) That for point 1(b) there is no record available of any Rule similar to Delhi High Court Videoconferencing Rules 2021, or other provision of law enabling the Central Information Commission to conduct hearings over intra video conference when the parties are physically present inside the Commission building. iii) That for point 1(c) there is no record available whereby a Double Bench of Information Commissioners was constituted to conduct / hold hearings in these matters, viz. CIC/UIDAI/A/2022/632131, CIC/MOEIT/A/2022/637603 and CIC/MOEIT/C/2022/637610. iv) That for point 1(d) there is no record available of the technical rules, analogous to the Delhi High Court Videoconferencing Rules 2021, detailing the infrastructure and standard operating procedures to be followed for intra video conferencing, as issued by the competent authority. v) That for point 1(e) there is no record available of the names and other particulars of the 2 Information Commissioners or other persons who conducted / heard these listed matters of Ms. Gita Dwan Verma, viz. CIC/UIDAI/A/2022/632131, CIC/MOEIT/A/2022/637603 and CIC/MOEIT/C/2022/637610. . vi) That for point 1(f) there is no record available of any next date for hearing(s) in these matters viz. CIC/UIDAI/A/2022/632131, CIC/MOEIT/A/2022/637603 and CIC/MOEIT/C/2022/637610. vii) That for point 2(b) there is no record available of stenographic records or other transcripts of these matters viz. CIC/UIDAI/A/2022/632131, CIC/MOEIT/A/2022/637603 and CIC/MOEIT/C/2022/637610. viii) That for point 2(d) there is no record available of the explicit consent of all the females present during the hearings to allow videoconferencing of these matters viz. CIC/UIDAI/A/2022/632131, CIC/MOEIT/A/2022/637603 and CIC/MOEIT/C/2022/637610. ix) That for point 3 there is no record available establishing that replying CPIO is an officer provided by Central Govt in terms of sub-section 13(6) of the RTI Act 2005. x) That for point 4 there is no record available of the particulars of the officers and employees posted in the offices of those Information Commissioners who heard these matters viz. CIC/UIDAI/A/2022/632131, CIC/MOEIT/A/2022/637603 and CIC/MOEIT/C/2022/637610.” 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
1172 CICOM/A/E/23/00174 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-06-2023 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/23/00441 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
1173 CICOM/A/E/23/00176 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-06-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/23/00040 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that no response within the time limit. “Subject : Appeal petition for providing the response as soon as possible under intervention action in reference to the CPIO not responding within the prescribed time period in view of the following facts. Ref. : CICOM/R/T/23/00040. Respected Madam, It is a humble request that despite informing the CPIO through a enclosed letter, the CPIO has not yet responded to the subjects in question of the RTI application even after the stipulated time period. Which shows gross violation of RTI Act. Unnecessary delay in replying to RTI application is affecting and delaying the further proceedings of the applicant. Therefore, in the said context, under the intervention proceedings, please provide relevant and satisfactory answers to the questions raised in the RTI application as soon as possible. Please inform about the positive response in the above context as soon as possible. Applicant will always be grateful to you for this. Thanks with regard, Note : Please refer to PDF file.” 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 21.06.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1174 CICOM/A/E/23/00172 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-06-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00206 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
1175 CICOM/A/E/23/00173 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-06-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00458 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Point No. 2 Incomplete Information Provided how much salary was deducted for those leave not provided kindly provide. Point No. 3&5 Information not provided ....What contract ? Kindly provide contract copy Point No. 6 Information not provided” 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
1176 CICOM/A/P/23/00084 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-06-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00169 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating “not satisfied”. 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 24.03.2023. The First Appeal has been initiated by the appellant on 22.05.2023 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
1177 CICOM/A/P/23/00083 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 31-05-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00215 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating “…I asked below mentioned information Under RTI Act 2005 on 0404.2023 but your PIO gave irrelevant and irresponsible answers for escaping… As an applicant I am very much constrain to take the requested information which is in the RTI Act 2005 definition only, my main motto is to take the requested information, but your PIO clearly showing escapism so please provide the information as per my 6(1) application otherwise I will move on to 19(3) appeal” 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
1178 CICOM/A/E/23/00171 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 31-05-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00478 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “In rtI reply, it was informed that PIo has enclosed the standard format for second appeal, but it was not enclosed. Also I request PIO, CIC to upload standard format for second appeal in CIC website.” 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 CR-I) is directed to revisit the point no. 2 of the RTI application and provide the standard format as mentioned by the CPIO in the RTI reply as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 20.06.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1179 CICOM/A/P/23/00082 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-05-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00160 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating “…None of the documents were received as “Certified Copy(ies)” as requested vide my RTI Application dated 24/02/2023h, but was received as “True Copy of document/record supplied under the RTI Act”. Even after the payment of the additional fee(s) as demanded by the CPIO for the supply of the information (by registering the protest) the information was not supplied as per my request it shall be treated s the CPIO has not supplied the information as per the provision(s) of the RTI Act….” “Relief Sought: To direct the CPIO or to release the information document(s)/ record(s) as requested vide my RTI Application dated 24/02/2023 in full and to take suitable action(s) against the PIO/CPIO/Public Authority so that the said documents(s)/ record(s) shall be supplied free of cost to the applicant/ appellant as requested his RTI Application at the earliest.” 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
1180 CICOM/A/P/23/00081 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-05-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00048 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Kindly call for the above reference (copy enclosed) and advised to dispose the enclosed first-appeal dated 15.01.2023 at an early date and oblige.” 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 03.02.2023. The First Appeal has been initiated by the appellant on 18.05.2023 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