| SNo. | Registration No | Appellate Authority Name | Received date | Reply Appeal | Reply Doc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1361 | CICOM/A/E/23/00054 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 01-02-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01189 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 Appellant in his RTI application has sought information on 21 points on second appeal no. CIC/REVDP/A/2022/152053-UM and the CPIO denied information stating that only administrative part of quasi-judicial system comes under purview of RTI Act and not the quasi-judicial records of the case. It is observed that CPIO in his RTI reply did not quote any denial clause as per the RTI Act, 2005. However, notwithstanding this FAA feels that information sought by the appellant in his RTI application from point no. 1 to point 21 was information submitted by the individual to Central Information Commission for the purpose of deciding the 2nd appeal which is in a fiduciary relationship 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 information is exempted u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005 All the grounds of the first appeal submitted by the appellant in his first appeal and first appeal hearing dated 24.02.2023 were taken into consideration by the First Appellate Authority, nothing of these grounds are found to be sufficient cause to conclude about the larger interest over the fiduciary relationship. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1362 | CICOM/A/E/23/00052 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 31-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/23/00004/2 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: How do I write my application for seeking the information as per RTI Act 2005? To which Public Authority can I file a request through this portal? How do I make the payment for RTI fee? Do I get any receipt for online filing of RTI application? What will happen to my application if I select a wrong Public Authority in the RTI request form? Will I be informed about the additional fee (if any) is required to pay? How do I file an appeal with First Appellate Authority? Do I need to make any payment for filing an appeal? Do I get any SMS from RTI Online Portal? What can I do if I forgot my login credentials? Is it mandatory to create user account on RTI online web portal? How much time RTI request/appeal retain at this portal? What should I do if amount is deducted from my account but registration number is not generated? What should I do when portal is not allowing me to file the first appeal? Can I file online first appeal for any RTI application filed physically in the first place ?Why RTI application filed by me is not reflecting in my user account history? Why I have received multiple RTI registration numbers, even though I have filed single RTI application? How can I View Status/Reply of my RTI Application or First Appeal? What if the Registration Number is not received on my Email or Mobile No. even after 48 working Hours? How to upload a supporting document if an alert comes as no SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FROM APPLICANT? What is the policy of the Commission regarding retention of records? Are there any public authorities exempt from providing information? In which language a request may be made for seeking information? What type of information may be obtained under the RTI Act? Who can seek information under the Right to Information Act, 2005? Has this Commission power to reconsider or review its order(s) on merit? Is the decision of this Commission binding? How information about disposal of a case is conveyed to the parties? Has this Commission power to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered by him? Is the complainant or the appellant entitled to hearing in the penalty proceedings under section 20 of the RTI Act? Has this Commission power to recommend disciplinary action against the CPIO under the applicable service rules? Is the CPIO entitled to opportunity of hearing before imposition of penalty? Has this Commission power to order for penalty while deciding a complaint or an appeal? Can the information or record relating to a third party or supplied by a third party and treated as confidential by the third party be supplied under the Act? On whom does the onus rest to prove that a denial of request is justified? Is the appellant required to be present in person at the time of hearing of the second appeal by this Commission? Is a complainant or an appellant entitled to priority in hearing cases? Is the appellant entitled to a hearing before the second appeal is decided by this Commission? 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 information provided by the CPIO as is available and held by the concerned CPIO and the other points are replied by the other concerned CPIOs i.e. CPIO RTI Cell and CPIO CR-1. 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 |
| 1363 | CICOM/A/E/23/00051 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 31-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00003 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: How do I write my application for seeking the information as per RTI Act 2005? To which Public Authority can I file a request through this portal? How do I make the payment for RTI fee? Do I get any receipt for online filing of RTI application? What will happen to my application if I select a wrong Public Authority in the RTI request form? Will I be informed about the additional fee (if any) is required to pay? How do I file an appeal with First Appellate Authority? Do I need to make any payment for filing an appeal? Do I get any SMS from RTI Online Portal? What can I do if I forgot my login credentials? Is it mandatory to create user account on RTI online web portal? How much time RTI request/appeal retain at this portal? What should I do if amount is deducted from my account but registration number is not generated? What should I do when portal is not allowing me to file the first appeal? Can I file online first appeal for any RTI application filed physically in the first place ?Why RTI application filed by me is not reflecting in my user account history? Why I have received multiple RTI registration numbers, even though I have filed single RTI application? How can I View Status/Reply of my RTI Application or First Appeal? What if the Registration Number is not received on my Email or Mobile No. even after 48 working Hours? How to upload a supporting document if an alert comes as no SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FROM APPLICANT? What is the policy of the Commission regarding retention of records? Are there any public authorities exempt from providing information? In which language a request may be made for seeking information? What type of information may be obtained under the RTI Act? Who can seek information under the Right to Information Act, 2005? Has this Commission power to reconsider or review its order(s) on merit? Is the decision of this Commission binding? How information about disposal of a case is conveyed to the parties? Has this Commission power to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered by him? Is the complainant or the appellant entitled to hearing in the penalty proceedings under section 20 of the RTI Act? Has this Commission power to recommend disciplinary action against the CPIO under the applicable service rules? Is the CPIO entitled to opportunity of hearing before imposition of penalty? Has this Commission power to order for penalty while deciding a complaint or an appeal? Can the information or record relating to a third party or supplied by a third party and treated as confidential by the third party be supplied under the Act? On whom does the onus rest to prove that a denial of request is justified? Is the appellant required to be present in person at the time of hearing of the second appeal by this Commission? Is a complainant or an appellant entitled to priority in hearing cases? Is the appellant entitled to a hearing before the second appeal is decided by this Commission? 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 information provided by the CPIO as is available and held by the concerned CPIO and the other points are not either replied/ transferred by CPIO RTI Cell to the CPIOs. CPIO RTI Cell is directed to reply to other points of the information sought by the appellant in the RTI application or transfer it to the concerned CPIOs which hold the information as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, by 10.03.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1364 | CICOM/A/E/23/00049 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 29-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01341/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “Appeal is annexed as pdf file. Contrary to the reply of CPIO, the link for the desired information on the CIC website is not working since September 2022. Hence the RTI Application was filed. Encl : RTI Application as pdf file.†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 appellant has mentioned in the grounds of appeal that in Point E the link for work allocation between various Information Commissioners of CIC does not open/ not working. On perusal of the same, it is found to be working. The link is - https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/Circulars%20&Noification/pa.pdf 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 |
| 1365 | CICOM/A/E/23/00048 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 29-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01341 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “Appeal u/s 19(1) of RTI Act, 2005 RTI Application numbered CICOM/R/E/22/01341 dt. 25-12-2022 was filed online to obtain the desired information on points (G-H) from the O/o Additional Secretary/FAA (RTI). Grounds for appeal : No information is in receipt from the concerned CPIO till date. It appears that Nodal CPIO has not transferred the RTI Application to the concerned office. Relief sought : It is requested to take up the issue with Nodal CPIO and direct the concerned CPIO to provide the desired information on points (G-H) of RTI Application. Encl : RTI Application as pdf file.†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, CPIO(RTI Cell) sought information u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act, 2005 from O/o Additional Secretary and FAA on 17.01.2023 and on 19.01.2023 the concerned CPIO furnished the reply to RTI Cell. CPIO(RTI Cell) disposed of the RTI application on 01.02.2023. Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. CPIO(RTI Cell) is directed to furnish the reply to the RTI application within the prescribed time limit as per the RTI Act, 2005, in the future. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1366 | CICOM/A/E/23/00047 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 28-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00012 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: I have received a message for disposal but no information is received. 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 |
| 1367 | CICOM/A/E/23/00046 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 25-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01362 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: 1. With regard to the queries 2 to 4, it is submitted that the FAA should answer the queries. (The appellant is in receipt of the reply of the CPIO dated 29.11.2022 to the appellant’s Non-Compliance Petition. The CPIO was under a legal obligation to send the reply to the appellant, without the appellant having to move an RTI to seek the supply of the reply.) It is further submitted that the decision of the Information Commissioner on the merits of the Non-Compliance petition should be communicated to the appellant so that the appellant could seek legal remedies as available at law. 2. With respect to the Query 5, it is submitted that the Information Commissioner has referred in its decision to the reply filed by the CPIO of BIRAC to the appellant’s Second appeal. Therefore, the reply of the CPIO, Mr A. K. Assija, is incorrect on this point. Please supply the Reply, along with documents, as requested in the RTI. 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 |
| 1368 | CICOM/A/E/23/00045 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 23-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01345 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “1. Is there guidelines to direct applicant to RTI act instead of responding the query. 2. If yes please share the copy 2. Does CIC assumes every applicant should and must be conversant wiht RTI Act ? 3. Doest RTI is meant for the person who knows the RTI Act ??†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 interpret information that is not a part of the record. In the instant case, the grounds of appeal do not coincide with the information sought in the RTI application and the appellant has raised new queries. As per the Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 it is the duty of the applicant to file information request with the concerned Public Authority which holds the information. State Information Commissions’ do not come under the purview/ambit of Central Information Commission, you are advised to approach the concerned 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 |
| 1369 | CICOM/A/E/23/00044 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 23-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01367 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “A: RELIEF SOUGHT: Transfer of this RTI appeal to CVC and CVO/CIC w.r.t CVC Complaint 3487/2022 dated 31/12/2022 against Information Commissioner Sh Uday Mahurkar and presently marked to Railway on 17/01/2023 B. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: No ink/digitally signed document from PIO is found attached with the disposal of the RTI request meaning thereby that an unknown criminal is dealing/operating online RTI requests as seen from the Year 2014 onwards. C. FACTS - Kindly note the following RTI appeal (edited/updated text) - CICOM/A/2014/60045 dated 08/10/2014 The relief sought: Cognisance of the RTI case as a complaint under section 18 (1) (c) and 18(1) (e) of the RTI Act duly initiating inquiry under section 18(2) and section 18(3) of RTI Act 1) On account of blatant violation of sections 7(1) and 19(6) of RTI Act by the Vigilance Directorate of Railway Board under the Ministry of Railways, the matter was reported to CVC on 03/08/201. CVC was investigating the matter vide complaint 18464/2014. 2) Ministry of Railways disposed of RTI appeal MORLY/A/2014/60924 dated 29/07/2014 on 27/05/2021. In the appeal, lapses in 59 RTI cases were attached. 3) Ministry of Railways disposed of RTI request MORLY/R/2013/61390 dated 30/09/2013 on 29/05/2017 Status APPEAL DISPOSED OF as on 19/12/2014 Date of Action 19/12/2014 Remarks Reply:- The CPIO, DR to IC(VS) has already responded on 08.10.14 stating that the copy of the letter of Railway Board dated 10.02.14 has been received and status of the action taken thereon has been already informed by him to the appellant. In view of the above, the available information in the Commission has been provided by the CPIO. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. The appellant, if he so desires, is free to file a second appeal under section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, before the Central Information Commission, Room No.326, 2nd Floor, C Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066 against this order within 90 days. A K DASH, AS and FAA 19.12.2014.†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 |
| 1370 | CICOM/A/E/23/00043 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 21-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01326 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “My RTI Petition has no relation with any departmental matter pertaining to the State Govt. of Tripura. My queries were related to the applicability of the RTI Act 2005 regarding an Institute named Ramakrishna Mission Vidyalaya (Aided by Govt. of Tripura). RTI Applicability has to be decided in the light of the statutory defination of the term of the RTI Act 2005 & I hope CIC Authority also follows the same RTI Act 2005. I want to know the applicability of the said RTI Act 2005 to the said Institute as per CIC in the light of the said statutory defination of the term of the RTI Act 2005. As per my limited knowledge I think my queries have no relation with State Government Tripura as because the State Government Tripura also follows the same RTI Act as like as the CIC Authority. In view of the above, I hope that I have tried my best to explain my ground of appeal & I shall forever be indebted to you if you kindly consider the above mentioned matter on top priority basis & take necessary action as per u/s 18 (1), u/s 20(1), u/s 20(2) & u/s 19(8)(b) subject to the provisions of RTI Act 2005 and Provide me with the information as per u/s 19(1), u/s 19(6), u/s 6(1) & u/s 6(2) subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 that I sought in my said RTI Petition. With Namaskar, Yours sincerely Amitava Roy Indian†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. As per the Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 it is the duty of the applicant to file information request with the concerned Public Authority which holds the 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 |