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
1271 CICOM/A/P/23/00054 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-03-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00045 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Sir, the decision of CIC dated 25/05/2016 has supplementary order after somedays of the date 25/05/2016, unfortunately I have no knowledge of the date of supplementary order. In the CPIO’s reply to my RTI application dated 09/01/2023, he did not enclosed the supplementary order of 2nd appeal No: CIC/CC/A/2015/003878YA. Hence I requesting you kindly furnish the supplementary order of case in 2nd Appeal according to Section 19/1 of RTIA-2005.” 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
1272 CICOM/A/P/23/00050 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-03-2023 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 24.04.2023 तक आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/23/00102 के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पुनः स्पष्ट सूचना प्रेषित की जाये। NA
1273 CICOM/A/P/23/00047 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-03-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00108 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “That the answer of your goodself is not satisfactory. Rather as per Act, action on each and every application filed by any applicant is required to be given whether it is negative or positive. But the official attitude of the office of CPIO RTI Cell clearly showing that in this manner, the opposite party is being helped indirectly. It is submitted for your kind information that the applicant is seeking information from last about 10 years qua his service but on each and every time, the matter was put in a lazy bag by giving interim reply. The applicant has now become frustrated from the attitude of the concerned office as he is struggling since the year 2012. His file No. CIC/LS/C/2012/000745-AB can be referred. Now the applicant has again received the same reply. Whereas he is struggling for his service benefits for which he has spent his 32 years of service with the department. It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant was called through video conferencing on 29-11-2019 but the opposite party did not come present there and the then Commissioner Sh Divya Prakash Sinha told the applicant that the opposite party will give affidavit qua the information sought by the applicant but the opposite party filed a false affidavit by saying that all the information has been provided to the applicant but in fact the complete information was not given. Now the applicant has suffered a great mental tension and agony as he is not being heard qua the information sought by him despite repeated appeals and submission and rather Mr Subodh Kumar CPIO(RTI Cell) again given reply of stereotype from which the applicant is not satisfied. Applicant be given the sought information after checking of his all previous records. Sir, it is not understood that why further action was not taken. The information for not taking further action is required as the information sought is the matter related to financial condition and the applicant is suffering for seeking information under RTI since long but the has not been supplied the complete sought information. Every time his time was killed by giving such interim replies. The reference File No of the case is CIC/LS/C/2012/000745-AB. Please instruct the concerned authority to provide the sought information related to the above said file no as detailed in the appeal dated 12-10-2022. Copy attached. Your positive response will be highly appreciated otherwise the applicant will know the door of Hon’ble Court.” 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. In the instant case, the appellant has mentioned about Second Appeal order and the appellant seeks information related to that second appeal order from other public authority which is beyond the mandate of the First Appellate Authority, CIC. 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
1274 CICOM/A/P/23/00048 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-03-2023 आर.टी.आई. आवेदन एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी. आई. आवेदन सं CICOM/R/P/23/00109 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/23/00109 तहत मांगी गई सूचना दिनांक 24.04.2023 तक अपीलकर्ता को (फ्री ऑफ कॉस्ट) ऑफलाइन प्रेषित की जाये। NA
1275 CICOM/A/P/23/00049 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-03-2023 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/23/00096 के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा बिंदु संख्या 1,2,3,4 & 8 में प्रेषित की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों एवं मांगी गई सूचना के अनुसार ही है। परन्तु, केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी ने आर.टी.आई. आवेदन के बिंदु संख्या 5, 6, 7, & 9 के प्रतिउत्तर का उल्लेख नहीं किया है अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (RTI Cell) को यह निर्देश दिए जाता है कि वह अपीलकर्ता को 24.04.2023 तक आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/23/00096 के बिंदु सं. 5, 6, 7, & 9 के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पूर्ण एवं स्पष्ट सूचना (फ्री ऑफ़ कॉस्ट) प्रेषित की जाये। NA
1276 CICOM/A/E/23/00104 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-03-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00165 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “CPIO, Legal Cell, has denied information stating that no information is available on the points requested. It is a misleading statement and denial of information. CPIO may be directed to provide the information sought because several papers are available on the internet requiring an extensive search for information sought which would be available in the Legal library. Several decisions/judgments have been extracted by a research scholar Safal Sethi in his paper titled Fiduciary Relationship under Section 8(1) (e) of RTI Act, 2005, Central Information Commission, Winter Internship, 2018 Submitted By Safal Sethi National Law University, Nagpur.” 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, collate or segregate 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
1277 CICOM/A/P/23/00046 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 22-03-2023 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 21.04.2023 तक आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CIC/CPIO/RTI-Misc/2023/58444 के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पुनः स्पष्ट सूचना प्रेषित की जाये। NA
1278 CICOM/A/E/23/00102 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-03-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00128 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “CPIO had wrongly denied the information on point no. 1 u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Kindly provided information on point no. 1 and provided incomplete information on point no. 2 List of employees above 65 years, Designation and tenure not provided and also provided incomplete information on point no. 3&4 copy of rules/laws/orders and officers name not provided. Kindly provided complete information of all points.” 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 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 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. For Point 2 to 4 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
1279 CICOM/A/E/23/00103 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-03-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00153 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “sir, my request was rejected by PIO with remarks that All records of final action taken on given dak diarised are available on CiC website Fudher, jt is staled ihai ihe concetned registry will comntunicale io you whenever your case is lisied for hea.ing You n]ay see your dak staius on CIC websiie i.e. cic.qov.in . but on the website final action taken not available in case of my communication diarised against my name and in case of which i have asked for the information. please help in getting the information.” 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. The information once published in public domain may not be treated as information held by a particular public authority. 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
1280 CICOM/A/E/23/00099 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 19-03-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/23/00015 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “False deficiency to reject 2nd appeal. Filed online. FAA chosen by nodal officer. Not by us Why FAA M Khandel answered & not forwarded to FAA of Bombay High Court. Violation u/s 6(3). Forward now RTI D (1 to 7) to be legally forwarded to PIO, Deputy registrar CHSL.Not done. 6(3) violation. Forward now RTI E to be forwarded to PIO, Mumbai police.Not done. 6(3) violation. Forward now RT F to be forwarded to PIO, BOMBAY HIGH COURT.Not done. 6(3) violation. Forward now.” 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