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
1261 CICOM/A/E/23/00107 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-04-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00208 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “(Appeal against incomplete decision and part-decision appearing not to be on behalf of CIC) On 07.03.2023, I made online request dated No. CICOM/R/E/23/00208. I enclosed Decision Notice from CIC Decision dated 26.03.2009 that allowed my appeal with directions u/s 19(8)(a)(iii) for CIC disclosure u/s 4(1)(b). I requested copies of the CIC office orders for (1) constituting its first RTI Cell that was described in Decision Notice and (2) designating its Joint Secretary & Additional Registrar CPIO of that RTI Cell. I also requested to be informed if CIC maintains record of its past disclosures u/s 4(1)(b) and, if it does, copies of the information published for compliance of the directions in Decision Notice dated 26.03.2009. On 31-Mar-23, my request was disposed of with online Reply: RTI fully disposed off on 31.03.2023 Letter dated 31.03.2023 uploaded says, under Information Provided, for point 1&2: No such information is available on record. GROUNDS: A) Combined decision for point no.1 & 2 appears to be on behalf of CPIO (whereas my RTI is defined u/s 2(j) in relation to public authority). The office order sought in point no.1 (of which that sought in point no.2 was likely part or adjunct) has to be part of CIC record because it relates to organizational history, i.e., in terms of CSMOP, a record for permanent preservation to be maintained for transfer in due course to the National Archives of India. B) Decision is incomplete. The online Reply and uploaded letter do not inform if CIC maintains record of past disclosures u/s 4(1)(b) / compliance of directions u/s 19(8)(a)(iii) or provide the copies sought. REQUEST: (a) Please provide, with your order, the copies of the office orders sought at point no.1 & 2 of my request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00208 (or confirm that they were weeded out from CIC records). (b) Please provide, in your order, the information sought at the end of my request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00208, i.e., whether or not CIC maintains record of its past disclosures u/s 4(1)(b) / compliance of directions u/s 19(8)(a)(iii) (and, if it does, copies of the disclosures made for compliance of the directions dated 26.03.2009).” 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
1262 CICOM/A/P/23/00057 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 31-03-2023 आर. टी. आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन किया गया अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि इस आदेश के प्राप्ति के दस दिन के भीतर दिनांक 01.05.2023 तक आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/23/00100 के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पुनः स्पष्ट सूचना प्रेषित की जाये। NA
1263 CICOM/A/P/23/00058 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 31-03-2023 आर.टी.आई. आवेदन एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी. आई. आवेदन सं CICOM/R/P/23/00105 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/23/00105 तहत मांगी गई सूचना दिनांक 01.05.2023 तक अपीलकर्ता को (फ्री ऑफ कॉस्ट) ऑफलाइन प्रेषित की जाये। NA
1264 CICOM/A/P/23/00055 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 31-03-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00086 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “No response received within 30 days of submission of Form-I. 1. P.I.O. has knowingly, wilfully not furnished information. 2. PIO has not furnished information within 30 days which is mandatory as per RTI Act. 3. PIO has no respect to the RTI Act.” DECISION OF 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 04.05.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1265 CICOM/A/P/23/00056 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 31-03-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00085 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “No response received within 30 days of submission of Form-I. 1. P.I.O. has knowingly, wilfully not furnished information. 2. PIO has not furnished information within 30 days which is mandatory as per RTI Act. 3. PIO has no respect to the RTI Act.” DECISION OF 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 04.05.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1266 CICOM/A/E/23/00106 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-03-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00105 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Appeal for point-2: URL/s at which the report submitted by M/s AN Tiwari and MM Ansari to CIC in 2015 (Transparency Audit: Towards an Open and Accountable Government) that has been in public domain is available. CONTEXT: In its Meeting on 13.12.2013, CIC decided to engage M/s Tiwari and Ansari as consultants to finalize guidelines and methodologies for the audit required in DOPT guidelines dated 15.04.2013. On 10.09.2014, w.r.t CIC letters No. 6/1/2013/CIC/Admn dated 19.12.2013, 26.06.2014 and 28.08.2014, DOPT conveyed approval for pilot project of 3 months at expenditure of Rs. 7,20,000 and permission for CIC to seek necessary budgetary provision in RE 2014-15. CIC Annual Report for 2014-15 reported (in Para-2.8.1) pilot project of 3 months and the report submitted by M/s Tiwari and Ansari to CIC in 2015. By office order No. 6/1/2013/JS(LAW)/CIC-III/2018 dated 31.08.2018, CIC awarded further consultancy to M/s Tiwari and Ansari (for Rs. 8,00,000 and expenses, etc.), report of which was submitted to CIC in November 2018. The report of 2018 is published on CIC website. The authors have stated, on page 9, that their report of 2015 HAS BEEN IN PUBLIC DOMAIN. FACTS: I had first requested the URL/s in request dated 27.11.22 No. CICOM/R/E/22/01165, which was transferred to DOPT. CPIO informed that the report was not published. FAA clarified it was not published by DOPT. Enclosing the DOPT decisions, I again requested the URL/s at point-2 in request dated 10.02.2023 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00105. On 02.03.2023, CPIO duly disposed of the other points of my request and said for point-2: No information is available. In fresh request tailored for DOPT (w.r.t to its committee to examine the report of 2015) I sought to know if DOPT has any information of publication of the report of 2015. CPIO has informed he has no information and I have appealed for confirmation on behalf of DOPT. GROUNDS: The report of 2015 was commissioned at public expense by CIC with approval through DOPT. The report of 2018 states that the report of 2015 has been in public domain. That statement is the basis of my aforesaid requests. If it is FALSE, its publication on CIC website is misleading and problematic. If it is TRUE, the report that could not have been privately published would have been placed in public domain by CIC and CIC holds the information of where it is available. Information that I have the right to request is defined u/s 2(f) to mean that held by the public authority. It cannot be denied to me for the reason that CIC has neglected to make it available to CPIO. REQUEST: Please provide the requested information with your order or, if the statement in the report of 2018 about the report of 2015 is false, have it redacted on CIC website.” 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
1267 CICOM/A/E/23/00105 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-03-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00169 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Appellate must kindly intervene. Even the staff at CIC is plain illiterate when it comes to RTI Act. Please see queries (vi) and (ix). Name and designation of officer having responsibility of inaction has been asked. CPIO says information is personal. Are name and designation personal? Or his right to repeatedly act contrary to law getting violated?” 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
1268 CICOM/A/P/23/00051 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-03-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00007 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “That, It is worth reiterating that CPIO has neither provided information sought , nor transferred said RTI application under Section 6(3) to the custodian of information.” DECISION OF 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 28.04.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1269 CICOM/A/P/23/00052 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-03-2023 आर.टी.आई. आवेदन एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी. आई. आवेदन सं CICOM/R/P/23/00106 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/23/00106 तहत मांगी गई सूचना दिनांक 21.04.2023 तक अपीलकर्ता को (फ्री ऑफ कॉस्ट) ऑफलाइन प्रेषित की जाये। NA
1270 CICOM/A/P/23/00053 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-03-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/23/00016 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “The CPIO failed to appreciate that the above information pertains to the Public Funds (Tax Payers Money) & there is nothing personal about it. Emoluments paid to even the Prime Minister, Supreme Court Judges, Election Commissioners, Solicitor General & many other high-ranking dignitaries paid from the consolidated fund of India are not exempt from the provisions of the RTI Act. A catena of judgements by various High Courts & Supreme Court, have time & again made it clear, that only information like medical records, DNA, family details, personal wealth, business activities, etc, of an individual, which are of an extremely personal nature can be denied as the same have no public interest involved. The information sought by the Appellant has a public interest as the same is covered by the statute itself. Section 13(5) of the RTI Act 2005, prescribes the manner in which the Salaries & Allowances will be paid to the Information Commissioners & hence, the same requires mandatory disclosure. The legality or otherwise, of any payments to any public servant, can be judged by the citizens only if the information is placed in the public domain. Any attempt to avoid the disclosure of the same is against the avowed objective of the Information Act & defeats the tall claims of transparency & accountability which the Central Information Commission is supposed to promote.” DECISION OF 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