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
1311 CICOM/A/P/23/00033 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-03-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00677 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “It is humbly prayed that: 1 Concerned CPIO IC(SP) may be directed to supply the correct information i.e. the copies of explanations of the CPIOs of SSS received by him in pursuance of the Orders of the CIC as sought in the RTI application. 2. The undersigned may be provided an opportunity for personal hearing before disposal of appeal. 3. I may be called personally during the course of hearing.” DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. In the instant appeal, the appellant had requested for personal hearing of the first appeal to which a hearing was conducted on 28.03.2023. Both the appellant and the CPIO were present in the hearing. All the submissions made by the appellant were considered during the decision on the first appeal. 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
1312 CICOM/A/P/23/00034 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-03-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00067 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Information given is incomplete and not stamped and not sent by speed post.” DECISION OF 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 information as sought by the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 06.04.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1313 CICOM/A/E/23/00084 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-03-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00185/2 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Kindly note that CPIO has not provided the point wise response for all the eight points sought information for in my RTI application. I am therefore, filing an appeal to get the response for each of the eight points individually, a point wise response. Further I want to also let First Appeal authority that I have read the decisions of CIC numerous times and it does not answer the information that I am requesting specially but not limited to the punishment for CPIO for not providing the information and point number 8 for providing a misleading and false 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. 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
1314 CICOM/A/E/23/00083 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-03-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00185 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Kindly note that CPIO has not provided the point wise response for all the eight points sought information for in my RTI application. I am therefore, filing an appeal to get the response fo r each of the eight points individually, a point wise response. Further I want to also let First Appeal authority that I have read the decisions of CIC numerous times and it does not answer the information that I am requesting specially but not limited to the punishment for CPIO for not providing the information and point number 8 for providing a misleading and false 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. 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
1315 CICOM/A/E/23/00081 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 05-03-2023 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/2023/00085 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
1316 CICOM/A/P/23/00028 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-03-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00038 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “However there are following deficiencies in the reply: a) Copy of order 27.08.2019 passed by CIC in second appeal No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2018/612530 provided by the CIC is uncertified/ unsigned/unstamped. Kindly provide me the said copy with stamp and sign on it because it has to be filed in Sessions Court. b) With regard to the “copy of letter No. ID/69/2018/4118/1-RTI/East Delhi dated 10.10.2019” only covering letter has been provided to me but the enclosure (which is fresh report received from SHO/Laxmi Nagar) is not provided to me.” DECISION OF 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 the information available on record as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 27.03.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1317 CICOM/A/P/23/00027 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-03-2023 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/23/00046 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। परन्तु आपने अपनी प्रथम अपील में यह कहा है कि अभी तक कोई सूचना प्राप्त नहीं कराई गई। जबकि केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा पत्र दिनांक 21.02.2023 के द्वारा सूचना भेजी का चुकी है। केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा दी गई सूचना, दिनांक 21.02.2023 की प्रति, प्रथम अपील के आर्डर के साथ संलग्न की जा रही है I 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
1318 CICOM/A/E/23/00080 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-03-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00094 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Ground of Appeal Unsatisfied with reply 1.Threre was no order passed by CIC from 4 oct 2020 up till 8 Feb 2023 RTI Company Gradiente Infotaiment ltd and Karvy computer share private Ltd preatains to same issue And same entity 2. As per information provided against documents enclosed they did not find any defeciency in RTI kindly provide 7 points information of RTI Act if information with reference to 7 points not available with CIC Kindly transferred to sebi to Reply to 7 points information Since the information which was asked under RTI Act does not preatains to same issue 3 . Information which was clubed By CIC against ROC It has a record In ROC information was provided by company Gradiente Infotaiment ltd to ROC Company Gradiente Infotaiment ltd Submitted the documents to sebi with reference to year 1995 to sebi on 2018 in name of S Harban Singh After document was submitted by company Gradiente Infotaiment ltd i had approached RTA involving tte company it is clear evidence after document was submitted by company Gradiente Infotaiment ltd to sebi on 2018 with reference to year 1995:there was a change of Record done by RTA of Karvy Computer Share Private Ltd it was sebi neligence Deficiency in services of investigation officer of Hyderabad which was not Reported to Delhi Sebi NRO RTA of Gradiente infotainment ltd changed the record from S Harban Singh to S Harbans Singh and from S Harbans Singh to Harbans Singh Sahni and Supplied information in ATR Report Submitted to sebi with reference to year 1995.” III. 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. In the instant case, the grounds of appeal mentioned by appellant in the first appeal are beyond the mandate of the First Appellate 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
1319 CICOM/A/E/23/00078 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-02-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00076 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “BACKGROUND: In request No. CICOM/R/E/22/01161 I attached Minutes of CIC Meeting on 30-Oct-19 and requested copy of Agenda No. 2 (Implementation of Transparency Audit Software) and two other points. Decision on 1st appeal No. CICOM/A/E/22/00313 was that the other points are not covered u/s 2(f) and CPIO would supply copy of Agenda No.2. Likewise, in request No. CICOM/R/E/22/01164 I attached Minutes of Meeting on 30-Jan-18 and requested copy of Agenda No. 3 (Grading of Public Authorities by ILI) and one other point. Decision on 1st appeal No. CICOM/A/E/22/00314 was that the other point was not covered u/s 2(f) and CPIO would supply copy of Agenda No.3. In both cases, by letters dated 27-Jan-23 CPIO supplied copies of Meeting Notices containing list of agenda topics, i.e., information already contained in (the Minutes attached with) the request. FACTS: On 01-Feb-22, I made request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00076 for copies of the material (irrespective of the nomenclature such as Agenda Number, Agenda Item, Agenda Note, Agenda Paper, etc., under which it is categorized, indexed and catalogued in CIC records) that the Commission considered to reach decisions disclosed under the Agenda in MOM. On 27-Feb-22, CPIO furnished Reply: No such information is available. GROUNDS: A) Commission Meetings is a subject listed in CIC orders u/s 5(1), published u/s 4(1)(b)(xvi). Such listing conveys that a request can be made to CPIO for information. What information of Meetings is maintained is undisclosed because, instead of statement of categories of documents, CIC has published u/s 4(1)(b)(vi) a statement of custodians. So, I requested material considered, irrespective of nomenclature. CPIO has said No such information is available. Because section 2(f) applies to the public authority (CIC), the response implies that no record is kept of the material considered at Commission Meetings. If that is a fact and CPIO holds no information other than notices listing agenda topics already published in MOM, then the listing of Commission Meetings in CIC office orders u/s 5(1) is false and misleading. B) MOM published on CIC website are perfunctory, at times saying just the word Approved or Discussed. The decisions announced through MOM publication include decisions which affect public and attract the mandate u/s 4(1)(c) to publish all relevant facts. Compliance in real time is especially necessary if no record is maintained / available with CPIO. C) MOM from the start are available on CIC website. This is a valuable resource being wasted because MOM have not been indexed by Agenda subject or even OCR scanned to enable topic search. Such website publication is not compliant with section 4(3) or GIGW. REQUEST: Please EITHER (a) provide the requested material with your decision, OR (b) confirm that none is available and issue instructions for deletion of Commission Meetings from orders u/s 5(1) and for compliance of sections 4(1)(c) and 4(3) in CIC website publication of MOM” 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
1320 CICOM/A/E/23/00079 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-02-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00077 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “BACKGROUND: In request No. CICOM/R/E/22/01163 I attached Minutes of CIC meeting held on 09-Oct-18 and sought 4 points of information including, at Point no. 1 & 3, copies of Agenda No. 4 (Disposal by First Appellate Authority) and Agenda No. 5 (Quarterly return and yearly transparency Audit) that were Approved. Decision on 1st appeal No. CICOM/A/E/22/00315 was that the other 2 points were not covered u/s 2(f) and CPIO would give reply to Point no.1 & 3 as per the provisions of the RTI Act. By letter dated 27-Jan-23 CPIO gave copy of Meeting Notice containing list of agenda topics, i.e., information already contained in (the Minutes attached with) the request. FACTS: On 01-Feb-22, I made request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00077 for copies of the material (irrespective of the nomenclature such as Agenda Number, Agenda Item, Agenda Note, Agenda Paper, etc., under which it is categorized, indexed and catalogued in CIC records) that the Commission considered to reach the decisions disclosed under Agenda No. 4 & 5 in the Minutes of Meeting held on 09-Oct-18. In end-note I requested CPIO as under: FAA had directed reply as per provisions of the RTI Act. However, the word reply itself occurs nowhere in the RTI Act. Please provide decision in accordance with section 7(1) of the RTI Act - i.e., please either provide the requested copies and make REQUEST DISPOSED OF entry on RTI Online or duly reject the request and make REQUEST REJECTED entry on RTI Online. On 27-Feb-22, CPIO disposed of my request with online Reply: A copy of RTI reply is enclosed herewith. The attached letter said, under Information provided: No such information is available. GROUNDS: Disposal of request is margin title of section 7 in the RTI Act and the phrase occurs nowhere else in the Act. A request can only be disposed of by a decision in accordance with section 7(1). It certainly cannot be disposed by RTI Reply that illogically issues, under the heading Information provided, the statement that No such Information is available. Request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00077 has been wrongly DISPOSED OF. If the requested information is not available in CIC, i.e., if no record is kept of the material considered at Commission Meetings, then the request should have been RETURNED for that reason. If record is kept but is not accessible by CPIO, then the request should have been REJECTED. REQUEST Please EITHER (a) provide the requested material with your decision, OR (b) confirm that none is available, clarifying whether it is not held in CIC or is not accessible by CPIO, and have the RTI MIS status of Request No. CICOM/R/E/23/00077 suitably rectified to RETURNED or REJECTED.” 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