| SNo. | Registration No | Appellate Authority Name | Received date | Reply Appeal | Reply Doc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1371 | CICOM/A/E/23/00041 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 20-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01342 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “My RTI Petition was not related to any department matter pertaining to the State Govt. of Tripura or any common public of Tripura. My RTI Petition query is related to the name of the Hon’ble Tripura State Chief Information Commissioner & also related to the person who is now performing the duties assigned to the Hon’ble Tripura State Chief Information Commissioner. As an example, if my query was related to the name of the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tripura , at least then I hope CIC authority should not reply to me like that “As your matter pertains to State Govt. Kindly file RTI application in concerned department directlyâ€. I think due to busy schedules, the respected CPIO forgets that he/she is also a Public Servant working under a Public Authority on which there is also a human being present as designated by Hon’ble Information Commissioner. Moreover the same CIC authority in pursuance to my several RTI complaints transferred my RTI Complaint petitions addressed to the Secretary, Tripura Information commission for necessary action from their end (Copy attached). It is quite surprising that without knowing the said fact how the CIC Authority can transfer my several complaints specifically/directly addressed to the Secretary, Tripura Information commission, Government of Tripura for necessary action. I think the First Appellate Authority should think about the said matter on a top Priority basis. This clearly transpires that being a Public Servant the respected CPIO does not only tries his/her best to conceal information but also misleads me in response to my said RTI Petition. Moreover the said Public Servant misuses the public money in the form of RTI petition fee of Rs.10 paid by a common Public of India like me. 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 against the said CPIO regarding this as per u/s 18 (1), imposing of penalties as per u/s 20(1), recommending disciplinary action as per u/s 20(2) & compensate me regarding detriment suffered by me as per 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." 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. 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 |
| 1372 | CICOM/A/P/23/00008 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 18-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00392 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that no reply has been received till date even after lapse of more than 4 months beyond the 30 days requisite time. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal and the RTI application have been perused. In the instant case, CPIO (DR to IC-UM) is directed to reply to the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 20.02.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1373 | CICOM/A/E/23/00039 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 18-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01299 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “IN THE CONTEXT OF MY RTI APPLICATION MENTIONED ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT INFORMATION REQUESTED VIDE PARA 4-6 HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED CITING ACTION IS UNDER PROCESS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT MORE THAN 10 MONTHS HAVE PASSED SINCE I SUBMITTED THE COMPLAINT APPLICATION/LIONK PAPER REGARDING NON COMPLAINCE OF THE ORDER OF HONOURABLE CIC IN MY SECOND APPEAL AND STILL IT HAS BEEN SAID THAT ACTION HAS BEEN INITIATED ANS STILL UNDER PROCESS. I HAVE MADE SEVERAL REQUESTS FOR ACTIONN ON MY REQUEST BUT NOTHING HAS COME SO FAR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS REQUESTED THAT INFORMATION ABOUT ACTION BEING TAKEN AGAINST CONCERNED CPIO FOR NON COMPLAINCE OF THE ORDER OF HONOURABLE CIC MAY PLEASE BE INTIMATED TO ME IN DETAIL SO AS TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHAT ACTION HAS BEEN INITIATED AND WHICH PROVISIONS OF RTI ACT HAVE BEEN INVOKED IN THE INSTANT MATTER. SUBMITTED WITH HIGH HOPE FOR AN EARLY RESPONSE.†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 |
| 1374 | CICOM/A/E/23/00040 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 18-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01305 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “SIR/MADAM, THE DIARY NUMBER OF MY SECOND APPEAL IS 665603 AND THE FILE NUMBER IS CIC/NRAIL/A/2022/665603. QUESTION 1 SIR/MADAM, BY WHAT DATE THE FIRST HEARING OF MY SECOND APPEAL CAN TAKE PLACE ? QUESTION 2 SIR/MADAM, TILL WHICH MONTH MY SECOND APPEAL CAN BE DISPOSED OFF ? Sir, you are requested that we are asking for this information for the justice of my member (candidate) who is currently in judicial custody, so you are humbly requested to please give this 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, collate or interpret 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 |
| 1375 | CICOM/A/E/23/00038 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 17-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01264 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “CPIO informed that No compliance reply received from the CPIO in the case bearing file No. CIC/DEPIN/A/2021/638827. You may non-compliance before CIC. However when appellant tried to file non-compliance, it was not getting uploaded and a message was displayed to the effect that compliance already exists. Therefore information provided appear to be false. CPIO may be directed to provide information sought or non-compliance should get uploaded. Non-compliance has not been registered despite email dated 07.10.2022 copy of which was sent to 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. 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 |
| 1376 | CICOM/A/P/23/00007 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 16-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00621 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “The uncertified copy is silent on a)that shows the competent authority to decide on such issue,b)powers, complaints received to complainant. No reply on action taken on non compliance complaint copy with such letters and CPIO letters for 20 days when such copies of remarks/ notes are only required.†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 |
| 1377 | CICOM/A/E/23/00037 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 16-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01310 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “SIR/MADAM, THE DIARY NUMBER OF MY SECOND APPEAL IS 665603 AND THE FILE NUMBER IS CIC/NRAIL/A/2022/665603. QUESTION 1 SIR/MADAM, BY WHAT DATE THE FIRST HEARING OF MY SECOND APPEAL CAN TAKE PLACE? QUESTION 2 SIR/MADAM, TILL WHICH DAY AND MONTH MY SECOND APPEAL CAN BE DISPOSED OFF? PLEASE SIR GIVE SATISFIED REPLY.†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. 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 |
| 1378 | CICOM/A/E/23/00036 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 14-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01322 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Sir/Madam, Although I clearly mentioned name of public authority name in my initial RTI application that is Institute of banking and finance (IIBF) which is directly governed/administrated by group of public authorities hence naturally it should be under RTI act but as per iibf saying they are not under rti act (snapshot of reply mail from iibf is attached), My RTI application was disposed off but neither requested information provided nor application transferred to Concerned Public authority under section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005. Here I appeal you to transfer my initial RTI application to IIBF so I can get requested information as mentioned in initial/original RTI application.†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 |
| 1379 | CICOM/A/E/23/00035 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 12-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01204 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: REQUEST TRANSFERRED TO OTHER CPIO as on 05/12/2022 But till dateno response/reply from the Other CPIO. It is responsibility of the PIO to fetch the information from third party. Hence i request you to provide asked information in my RTI i.e., Certified copy of information maintained in your office for Honorable CIC order in File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000014 DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal and the RTI application have been perused. In the instant case, CPIO (DR to IC-UM) is directed to reply to the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 14.02.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1380 | CICOM/A/P/23/00005 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 11-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00537 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that no response to information sought under RTI Act. 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 CPIO furnished reply to the RTI application on 09.01.2023, but as mentioned by the appellant in the first appeal of non-receipt of the reply, a copy of the RTI reply is being attached with this order. 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 |