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
1351 CICOM/A/E/23/00058 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-02-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00055 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: Respected FAA, I am B Ravi, R/o. Visakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh and as a citizen of India requesting you to upload the required information under section 19 (1) RTI ACT 2005 respectively. As CPIO has failed by denied to furnish the information under section 6 (1) RTI ACT 2005. Further requesting you to kindly upload the certified copy of the order vide reference number mentioned below. CIC/PRSEC/A/2019/657105 dated 07.04.2021. Thanking you and Sincerely 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
1352 CICOM/A/P/23/00013 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-02-2023 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/22/00670 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
1353 CICOM/A/P/23/00012 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-02-2023 आर.टी.आई. आवेदन एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी. आई. आवेदन सं CICOM/R/P/22/00676 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/22/00676 तहत मांगी गई सूचना 10 दिन के भीतर दिनांक 20.02.2023 तक अपीलकर्ता को (फ्री ऑफ कॉस्ट) ऑफलाइन प्रेषित की जाये। NA
1354 CICOM/A/P/23/00014 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-02-2023 प्रस्तुत मामले में, सम्बंधित दस्तावेजों का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा 05.12.2022 को सूचना प्रेषित की गई, जबकि अपीलकर्ता द्वारा दिनांक 18.01.2023 को प्रथम अपील दाखिल की गई है, जो कि सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 में प्रथम अपील दाखिल करने हेतु निर्धारित अवधि 30 दिन से ज्यादा है। अपीलकर्ता द्वारा विलंब से प्रथम अपील दाखिल करने का कोई ठोस कारण का उल्लेख नहीं किया गया है। अतः बिना किसी ठोस कारण के प्रथम अपील विलंब से दाखिल करने के आधार पर यह प्रथम अपील ख़ारिज की जाती है। NA
1355 CICOM/A/E/23/00057 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-02-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01228 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that Date 07 /02 / 2023 To, The First Appellate Authority Central Information Commission Bana Gang Nath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067 Online RTI 1st Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 Reference:- Online RTI request Registration No.: CICOM/R/E/22/01228 dated 05.12.2022 Madam/Sir, Your attention is drawn by the appellant before the appellate authority that despite of lapse of 60 plus days of receipt of the RTI request application by the concerned CPIO of the Honorable Commission, he has miserably failed to furnish the required information within the mandated period of 30 days as prescribed u/s 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005. PRAYER The appellant is aggrieved by the unexpected delay on the part of the concerned CPIO of the Hon’ble Commission and in view of the above-mentioned facts; the appellant urges the appellate authority to direct the concerned CPIO of the Honorable Commission to disclose the required information to the appellant within a fixed time frame. Further, as the concerned CPIO of the Honorable Commission failed to comply with the time limits specified in section 7(1), the required information should be provided free of charge u/s 7(6) of the RTI Act 2005. I hereby prefer an appeal in the case and urge your appropriate decision as per the relevant provisions of the RTI Act 2005. 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 10.03.2023, free of cost and reply to all the RTI applications within the prescribed time as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, in the future. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1356 CICOM/A/P/23/00009 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-02-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00626 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “ I have been requesting O/o CIC to send me: Documentary evidence based on which Hon’ CIC has satisfied that compliance of CIC order dtd 01-10-2018 has been complied with (I had requested OP CGHS to send me Xerox copy of my Redg. AD letter dtd 02-06-2015 sent to them and CC to their H.O. officer with their notings/remarks recorded on the said letter) Documentary evidence based on which Hon’ CIC has satisfied that compliance of CIC order dtd 01-10-2018 has been complied with (I had requested OP CGHS to send me Xerox copy of my Redg. AD letter. Original sent to them and CC to their H.O. officer with their notings/remarks recorded on the said letter) O/o CIC in their note dtd 07-01-2021 put up to Hon. CIC for his order, themselves has mentioned (Page 1, letter of mine dt 02-06-2015) is traceable..... In such a case when the said letter is not traceable by OP. CGHS, then how note is put up to Hon. CIC recommending... No case of non-compliance is made. We may close the file, if approved. (7-1-21 dated.) Dt appeals Hon’CIC due to shortage of time has not gone thru details of the case and approved “closure of file” put up by his office. Kindly advise concerned authority to rectify order.” 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 grounds of appeal mentioned by the appellant in his First Appeal are beyond the purview of the First Appellate Authority of 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
1357 CICOM/A/P/23/00010 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-02-2023 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/23/00032 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। किन्तु केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी के जवाब में दिनांक में त्रुटि होने के कारण अपीलकर्ता जवाब से संतुष्ट नहीं है। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि इस आदेश के प्राप्ति के दस दिन के भीतर दिनांक 20.02.2023 तक आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/23/00032 के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पुनः स्पष्ट सूचना प्रेषित की जाये। NA
1358 CICOM/A/P/23/00011 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-02-2023 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/22/00662 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
1359 CICOM/A/E/23/00056 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-02-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01190 DECISION OF THE 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 24.02.2023. 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. But the submissions made by the appellant were same as raised by him in the grounds for first appeal of his online first appeal and no value addition/additional submissions were made by him during the hearing which led to wastage of the valuable time of the public authority, as the appeal could have been decided on the written submissions made by the appellant in his online first appeal. The point-wise disposal of the First Appeal is as follows:- For Point No. 1 CPIO Admin Section is directed to revisit the RTI application for Point no. 1 and provide information on record pertaining to Legal Consultants keeping in mind the Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 by 07.03.2023. For Point No. 2 The Bar Council number enrolment number of Legal Consultants as requested by appellant in the point no. 2 of the RTI application is information which is in a fiduciary relationship submitted to Central Information Commission by the individuals and hence cannot be provided. FAA feels that it would be an unwarranted invasion on the privacy of the individual. Accordingly, the Bar Council number enrolment number/ ID card of Legal Consultants is exempted u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 and hence the denial of this information by CPIO was found to be appropriate. For Point No. 3 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. 4 The appellant during the first appeal hearing mentioned about the suo motu disclosure guidelines issued by the DoPT and quoted 1.4.1 of the OM. Guidelines on suo motu disclosure under Section 4 of the RTI Act. These are guidelines issued by DoPT vide OM No. 1/6/2011-IR, these are not rules under the RTI Act and even no such thing is mentioned in Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. Accordingly, FAA feels that the publication of the information under Section 4(1)(b) is only mandated by the Act to such information which is specified, under clause 4(1)(b)(i) to (ix). CPIO is not the appropriate authority to decide as to which kind of information is to be covered under suo motu disclosure under the Act. CPIO Admin Section is directed to revisit the RTI application for Point no. 4 and provide information on record as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 07.03.2023. In case, any such reasons for non-inclusion of these details under Section 4(1)(b) are available in the office records, a copy of the same may be provided or else non-availability of such information may be specifically mentioned in the RTI reply. For Point No. 5 CPIO Admin Section is directed to revisit the RTI application for Point no. 5 and provide information on record pertaining to Legal Consultants as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 07.03.2023. In case, any such information is available in the office records, a copy of the same may be provided or else non-availability of such information may be specifically mentioned in the RTI reply. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1360 CICOM/A/E/23/00053 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-02-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01157 DECISION OF THE 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 24.02.2023. 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. But the submissions made by the appellant were same as raised by him in the grounds for first appeal of his online first appeal and no value addition/additional submissions were made by him during the hearing which led to wastage of the valuable time of the public authority, as the appeal could have been decided on the written submissions made by the appellant in his online first appeal. The point-wise disposal of the First Appeal is as follows:- In the instant case, the appellant stated that this is a life or liberty application under the proviso to sub-section 7(1) of RTI Act and requested that information be provided within 48 hours. CPIO (DR to IC-UM) refused the request stating that the reason stated by the appellant does not cover/falls under Section 7(1) of RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, it is felt that the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Point No. 1 The appellant requested for 4 nos. of certified copy of decision issued by Information Commissioner Shri Uday Mahurkar in file no. CIC/REVDP/A/2022/152053-UM. However, CPIO stated that the same is available on the website and also provided a certified copy of the order. But as mentioned by the appellant in the grounds of the first appeal that the copy provided by the CPIO is illegible. There is no provision for additional copies under the Act. Accordingly, CPIO (DR to IC-UM) is directed to provide legible copy of the same as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 07.03.2023. Point No. 2 The appellant requested for “complete particulars of the Legal Consultants assigned to Shri Uday Marhurkar as on the date of the said decision along with their Bar Council enrollment number”. The CPIO denied to the requested stating Section 8(1)(e), 8(1)(j) & 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act,2005. This has been dealt with in CICOM/A/E/23/00056, wherein CPIO (Admin Section) is directed to provide information on record pertaining to Legal Consultants as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 07.03.2023. The Bar Council number enrolment number of Legal Consultants as requested by appellant in the point no. 2 of the RTI application is information which is in a fiduciary relationship submitted to Central Information Commission by the individuals and hence cannot be provided. FAA feels that it would be an unwarranted invasion on the privacy of the individual. Accordingly, the Bar Council number enrolment number of Legal Consultants is exempted u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 and hence the denial of this information by CPIO was found to be appropriate. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA