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
1211 CICOM/A/E/23/00145 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-05-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00320 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “1 CPIO has limited the inspection of file CIC/MEDCI/A/2020/60 0973 in PDF format only and thus has not offered the inspection of full files i.e. the files that are not in the PDF format. 2 CPIO has not responded to query 2 of the RTI application” 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 information as available on record as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 07.06.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1212 CICOM/A/P/23/00072 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-05-2023 आर.टी.आई. आवेदन एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी. आई. आवेदन सं CICOM/R/P/23/00138 के प्रतिउत्तर में कोई भी सूचना प्रदान नहीं की गई है। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी को यह निर्देश दिए जाता है कि वह अपीलकर्ता को आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/23/00138 तहत मांगी गई सूचना दिनांक 22.05.2023 तक अपीलकर्ता को (फ्री ऑफ कॉस्ट) ऑफलाइन प्रेषित की जाये। NA
1213 CICOM/A/E/23/00143 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-05-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00337 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “The two RTI Applications are for DIFFERENT TOPICS that have NOTHING to do with each other. Yet, CIC combined both these 2nd Appeals. Hence, CIC must disclose ALL document-details for both the RTI Applications so that I can submit it in the Court of Law to seek OUTRIGHT Removal of the CIC and Initiation of Criminal Action. CIC has NO IMMUNITY from Prosecution in a CRIMINAL CASE. You guys are PLAYING with the lives of people. In a MURDER CASE, you CIC people are fooling around as if it is a bachcha party. If you continue to block this information, you are only implicating yourselves EVEN MORE. The contrast between the two RTI Applications is so stark that it is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR to everyone that the CIC deliberately gave CLEAN CHIT to Govt of India in a MURDER CASE by refusing to order Govt of India to disclose the documents that show the FILE MOVEMENT and DECISION MAKING in accordance with the CCS CONDUCT RULES so that the Govt of India approaches the Local Court with the help of the LOCAL CBI as the local police are protecting the murderers and the corrupt. Even the NITK REGISTRAR AND NITK CHIEF VIGILANCE OFFICER AND THE NITK DEAN ACADEMIC AND THE NITK GRC CONVENER HAVE GIVEN WRITTEN STATEMENTS THAT POINT TO THE ROLE OF THE NITK GRC CHAIRMAN IN THE DEATH OF THIS BOY. This NITK GRC Chairman was the SAME PERSON who dealt with the subject in which I was Stalked and DELIBERATELY FAILED AGAIN AND AGAIN FOUR TIMES, MENTALLY TORTURED, MADE TO LOSE JOB WITH TCS, PREVENTED FROM BECOMING ENGINEER JUST LIKE THIS LATE NITK STUDENT AND PREVENTED FROM PURSUING FURTHER STUDIES. CIC protected my stalkers though my marks increased from 22 to 48 on revaluation of answer sheet. CIC disclosed the DEGREE CERTIFICATE of the PM OF INDIA but not the identity of my STALKERS. So, I am CERTAIN that CRIMINAL CHARGES will be pinned against you CIC people in due course.” 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
1214 CICOM/A/E/23/00144 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-05-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00377 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Dear Sir/Madam, I am writing in response to the reply received from CIC regarding my RTI application dated 14.04.2023, with reference to my second appeal NO. CIC/LICOI/A/2022/640200. While I appreciate the information provided by the CPIO-DR-IC (NG), Mr. S.C. Sharma, I am not satisfied with the response as it does not provide me with the name of the concerned Information Commissioner who was handling my second appeal before demitting office. It is important for me to know the name of the Commissioner as it will help me in understanding the status of my appeal and any further action that needs to be taken. Therefore, I request you to provide me with the name of the Information Commissioner who was handling my second appeal before demitting office. Additionally, I would like to know the expected timeline for the transfer of my appeal to the new Commissioner and when can I expect a hearing notice for my appeal. I also wish to file an appeal under section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, against the response received from Mr. S.C. Sharma. Kindly provide me with the necessary details and procedure for filing an appeal. Thank you for your attention to this matter.” 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
1215 CICOM/A/E/23/00142 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-05-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00402 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “TO FAA,CIC,NEW DELHI.all are common in front of law.please assume this case order to re enquire.CIC/UGCOM/C/2022/609376-nobody enquire me but how was possible to give judgement both judge and respondent were absent. sir/madam,my name is ilakkia rasan from tamilnadu.yesterday(20th april 2023) i attended hearing case 1 out of 2petition.ugc petition nobody enquired me from judge and respondent.I was not attending ugc petition but still more than 1 hour(fgrom 1pm to 2pm) waiting judge and respondent absent. at villupuram collector office.please you check a record from video conference from villupuram collector office.how was possible to give judgement or decision from the judge and respondent were absent.notE:villupuram collector office also has done this scam.” 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
1216 CICOM/A/E/23/00141 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-04-2023 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 CICOM/R/E/2023/00270 के 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 केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना तथ्यात्मक है और इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है। NA
1217 CICOM/A/E/23/00140 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-04-2023 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 CICOM/R/E/2023/00404 के 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 केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना तथ्यात्मक है और इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है। NA
1218 CICOM/A/E/23/00139 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-04-2023 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 CICOM/R/E/2023/00226 के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रेषित की गई सूचना, बिंदु संख्या 2, 6 से 13 तक दी गई सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों एवं मांगी गई सूचना के अनुसार ही है। परन्तु बिंदु संख्या 1 सीपीआईओ (एम् एंड आर अनुभाग) बिंदु संख्या 3 & 5 सीपीआईओ (DR to I C SP) तथा बिंदु संख्या 4 सीपीआईओ (CR - II) के लिए केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारिओं को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि इस आदेश के प्राप्ति के दस दिन के भीतर दिनांक 22.05.2023 तक आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/23/00226 के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पुनः स्पष्ट सूचना प्रेषित की जाये। NA
1219 CICOM/A/E/23/00136 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-04-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00303 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that Sir I am submitting an appeal under section 19 (1) of RTI act 2005 for further approciate action against violence of RTI provision with rules on CPIO dr to( information commissioner) central information commission UM shri Rao. Enclosed-an written Appeal alongwith required documents. 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 22.05.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1220 CICOM/A/E/23/00135 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-04-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00400 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Sir I am submitting an appeal under section 19 (1) of RTI act 2005 for satisfaction with complete information ( both category) of entired list registered under second schedule as such with section 24 as on belows ar,- 1. CPIO reply is not clear and properly act. 2. A copy of section 24 registered under second schedule with RTI Act 2005. Hence sir I am requested to you that pleased would be passed an approciate order interest f justice. I shall be everpray always to you for Act of this kindness.” 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