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
1181 CICOM/A/E/23/00169 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-05-2023 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/T/23/00041 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
1182 CICOM/A/E/23/00168 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-05-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00415 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that no response within the time limit. “Dear Sir The RTI application was filed more than a month ago but no reply received till date. Only a letter stating that the request for information has been transferred to CPIO of other Department dated 8.5.2023.I have attached the original RTI application along .Please look into this and revert at the earliest.” 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 12.06.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1183 CICOM/A/E/23/00167 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-05-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00334 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
1184 CICOM/A/E/23/00165 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 26-05-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00315 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that no response within the time limit. “Dear Sir, no reply within 30 days, requesting to direct PIO to furnish information within 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 07.06.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1185 CICOM/A/E/23/00166 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 26-05-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00321 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that no response within the time limit. “Dear Sir, no reply within 30 days, requesting to direct PIO to furnish information within 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 07.06.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1186 CICOM/A/E/23/00164 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 26-05-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00385 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 07.06.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1187 CICOM/A/E/23/00163 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-05-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/23/00046 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Subject : Appeal petition for providing adequate and satisfactory response under the intervention action in view of the dissenting remarks shown by the applicant in the enclosed reply of CPIO in PDF, in view of the following facts. Ref. : CICOM/R/T/23/00046, dated 17.05.2023. Respected Sir, It is humbly submitted that in the above context, inconsistent, misleading and irrational response has been expressed by the CPIO on the subject in question from serial number 1 to 4 of RTI application. Applicant has also expressed his dissenting remarks in the enclosed reply of CPIO in PDF. Therefore, in view of the above facts, please provide relevant, factually satisfactory and adequate response as soon as possible under the intervention action. 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, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. In the instant case, CPIO (Dak Section) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide information in relation to document dated 03.04.2023 as sought by the applicant in the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 23.06.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1188 CICOM/A/E/23/00162 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-05-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00502 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Required information not provided. Is commission came under public service guarantee act. etc.” DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. CPIO (DR to CIC-YS) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide point-wise information as per available records as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 12.06.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1189 CICOM/A/E/23/00161 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-05-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00434 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Mr Samariaya not only was responsible for inaction on disclosure of my POSTAL ADDRESS, which, he acknowledged in WRITING in his capacity as CIC, is PERSONAL INFORMATION, when he was the SECRETARY of the MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT OF GOVT OF INDIA, but even prevented disclosure of REPRESENTATION OF THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS TO THE NITK FACT FINDING COMMITTEE. As per DoPT Rules on RTI, REPRESENTATION of citizens to PUBLIC AUTHORITY is PUBLIC INFORMATION. UPLOADED. So, it is necessary to know how many CHILDREN Mr Samariya has and how many grand children and now many nephews and nieces and whether they are in INDIA so that we can assess his commitment to BHARAT. Why boy has DIED and RULES require DISCLOSURE OF REPRESENTATION OF THOUSANDS OF PROTESTING STUDENTS, what PROBLEM Mr SAMARIYA Had in disclosing this? Mr Samariya will GO TO JAIL for violation of Section 201 IPC. CIC must disclose this information in PUBLIC INTEREST because when CIC has NO PROBLEM when NITK STALKERS gained access to my postal address, then SURELY CIC must be made to disclose THE REQUESTED INFORMATION. Section 17 (v) of DoPT Rules: RULES/REGULATIONS/BYE LAWS of KREC Surathkal are PUBLIC INFORMATION for SUO MOTO Disclosure. Section 17 (vii) DoPT Rules: Hence, as the REPRESENTATION of Thousands of NITK Students to the Fact Finding Committee is PUBLIC INFORMATION for SUO MOTO Disclosure. Why did students protest PUBLICLY if NITK was following DUE PROCESS of Grievance Redressal?” DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. As per Section 8(1)(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual may be exempted from disclosure unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such 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
1190 CICOM/A/E/23/00160 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-05-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00394 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “FACTS: In 2022-23 I have received NINETEEN letters titled NOTICE OF HEARING FOR APPEAL/COMPLAINT. None is legal notice issued under any provision of law. All have been issued on CIC letterhead and addressed to me by name and to one or more un-named others. Each proceeds from the instruction: Take notice that the above... has been listed for hearing before Hon-ble Information Commissioner ... On 19.04.2023, when I had received SIXTEEN such letters, I made request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00394 for copy of the instrument / decision by which the honorific HON-BLE has been conferred upon Information Commissioners appointed to the Commission constituted u/s 12(1) of the RTI Act. On 19.05.2023, CPIO DR (Central Registry-I) has disposed of my request. CPIO has stated that the information pertains to Administration Section which is also the custodian of such information and has furnished, after seeking u/s 5(4), the Reply received from Administration Section, i.e.: No such administrative orders/guidelines have been issued. GROUNDS: A) I have not requested administrative orders / guidelines. I have requested copy of the instrument / decision by which the honorific being used in (presumably tens of thousands of) Notices of Hearing has been conferred. B) The information does not pertain to Administration Section because it pertains to the honorific used in Notice of Hearing and REGISTRAR (and not JS(Admin)) is identified against Agenda items on subject of Notice of Hearing in Minutes of CIC Meetings published on CIC website (e.g.: Agenda No.3 in MoM dated 05.09.2017, Agenda No. 4 in MoM dated 03.04.2018). C) Section 5(4) of the RTI Act empowers CPIO to take assistance of any other OFFICER (and not any other SECTION, such as the Administration Section of CIC that has its own CPIO). REQUEST: Please provide the requested information with the decision on this appeal and please provide the 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