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
1241 CICOM/A/E/23/00126 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 10-04-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/23/00032 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “FACTS: On 12/03/23 I made request to DOPT for 3 points of information: (1) 3 DOPT letters cited in Minutes of CIC Meetings held on 11/02/15 (Agenda No.1: Extension of existing contract for engagement of outsourced persons and awarding of new contract and Agenda No.2: Engagement of legal consultants) and 30/10/18 (Agenda No. 4: Manpower issues - (C) Legal Consultants), (2) copies of further DOPT letters to CIC on subjects of the aforesaid letters, and (3) Particulars of F. No. 4/2/2012-IR (in which the letters cited were issued) and of any other DOPT file related to engagement of outsourced staff and legal consultants in CIC. On 14/03/23 DOPT made transfer No. CICOM/R/T/23/00032 to CIC. On 10/04/23 Consultant (Admin) & CPIO has disposed of the DOPT transfer with a letter saying, thrice - point-wise under Information provided, that No such information is available. GROUNDS: CPIO has not stated that no such information is available in CIC. Section 2(f) of the RTI Act defines information to mean material held by the public authority, but CPIO may have given decision on his own behalf (because DOPT letters to CIC in the matter of staffing relate to the continuing statutory function u/s 13(6) and seem unlikely to have been weeded out / become unavailable in CIC). REQUEST: Please confirm in your order that the point-wise decision given by Consultant (Admin) & CPIO holds for the public authority, CIC.” 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
1242 CICOM/A/E/23/00122 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-04-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00322 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “RTI application which was transferred to SC IC, was disposed of by attaching letter in which it was mentioned that information relates to CR section. as such appellate authority is requested to help me in getting information either from SC IC or CR section. if the application is to be again transferred by SC IC then he should have transferred it instead of closing it.” DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point No.1 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. For Point No.2 In the instant case, CPIO (DR CR-I) has already been directed in First Appeal No. CICOM/A/E/23/00109 to reply to Point no. 2 of the same RTI Application 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
1243 CICOM/A/E/23/00117 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-04-2023 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/2023/00194 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
1244 CICOM/A/E/23/00118 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-04-2023 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/2023/00207 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
1245 CICOM/A/E/23/00119 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-04-2023 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 सं. CICOM/R/E/23/00265 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
1246 CICOM/A/E/23/00120 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-04-2023 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/2023/00155/3 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
1247 CICOM/A/E/23/00121 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-04-2023 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/2023/00155 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
1248 CICOM/A/P/23/00061 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 05-04-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00152 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “The CPIO has not explained how sought information comes under category of Personal Information and Commercial Confidence or Trade Secret etc.? Hence, the Reply is Incorrect. Prayers: 1. That, the FAA may direct the CPIO to provide requested information free of cost w.r.t. Point No. 2. 2. That, the FAA is hereby requested for disposing of FA within the time prescribed under sub-section (6) of Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 by passing properly reasoned/ Speaking Order.” DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. 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
1249 CICOM/A/P/23/00062 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 05-04-2023 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/P/23/00135 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 केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना तथ्यात्मक है और इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है। NA
1250 CICOM/A/E/23/00116 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 05-04-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00221 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “FACTS: I made REQUEST dated 12/03/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00221 for information of all CIC officers and employees. I specifically stated as CONTEXT that all officers and employees are normally disclosed u/s 4(1)(b)(ix) & (x), but not in the CIC disclosures (i.e., directory of about 70 persons / rooms and listing of 15 pay levels). Consultant (Admin) & CPIO has given decision vide letter dated 05/04/23 that says, under Information provided: The pay scale of regular employees working in the Central Information Commission is available at the following link: https://cic.gov.in/rti-disclosures GROUNDS: A) CPIO has not provided the requested information. The link provided is of an index page. The pay scales (15) are listed in the CIC publication u/s 4(1)(b)(x) linked therefrom that was mentioned in my request and is ATTACHED herewith for your ready reference. It does NOT disclose EACH of its officers and employees, as mandated u/s 4(1)(b)(x). B) CPIO has informed that the CIC disclosure u/s 4(1)(b)(x) is limited to REGULAR EMPLOYEES. The mandate u/s 4(1)(b)(x) is NOT limited to REGULAR and the CIC disclosure is not limited to EMPLOYEES. C) All information that the public authority is mandated to publish u/s 4(1) is evidently covered by the prior definition of information u/s 2(f). It does not have to created, collated, etc by CPIO because the public authority is mandated u/s 4(3) & (4) to ensure that it is easily accessible with CPIO. The purpose, stated u/s 4(2), of the mandate u/s 4(1)(b) is to spare me the inconvenience of resort to RTI process. It is strange that I not only had request u/s 6(1) but am also having to appeal u/s 19(1) for information of CIC officers and employees. REQUEST: Please provide, with your order, the information of ALL CIC officers and employees (regular or otherwise) that I have requested u/s 6(1) because it is not available on CIC website u/s 4(1)(b)(ix) & (x).” DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. 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