| SNo. | Registration No | Appellate Authority Name | Received date | Reply Appeal | Reply Doc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1391 | CICOM/A/E/23/00012 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 05-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01205 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: FACTS: In online request dated 04-Dec-22 No. CICOM/R/E/22/01205, I attached Minutes of CIC Meeting held on 03-Jun-2014 and requested COPIES of: 1. Agenda No. 2 (Fixing of the age of Senior Citizen for the purpose of hearing of cases on priority). 2. Specimens of speaking orders pursuant to decision on Agenda No.2 that illustrate reasons meriting out-of-turn hearing. (If the speaking orders are included in final Decision available on CIC website, only file numbers are needed) 3. Current policy for out-of-turn hearing of cases on priority, including procedure for applying for priority hearing. (If published on CIC website, path from Home-page may be provided instead of copy). I stated in end-note that possibility of out-of-turn hearing is mentioned in para-10 of CIC s disclosure u/s 4(1)(b)(iii). (Page ATTACHED). On 04-Jan-23, my request was disposed of online with uploaded letter No. 2023/CIC/ ADMN/RTI dated 3rd January 2023 stating point-wise under Information provided: 1. The information is available in the CIC website the URLs of which is given below: https://cic.gov.in/circulars-and-mom/27 2. F. No. CIC/CCITD/A/2022/638305 3. The information is available in the CIC website the URLs of which is given below: https://cic.gov.in/circulars-and-mom-cic/155 GROUNDS: Instead of providing information in the form requested, as mandated u/s 7(9), CPIO has given INCORRECT Reply for each point: Point-1: Instead of COPY of Agenda, CPIO has given Minutes of Meetings link on Home-page, i.e., to index of MOM since 2005 (259 as of today). No Agenda are accessible from it. Point-2: Instead of COPIES of specimens / file numbers of Decisions illustrating reasons meriting out-of-turn hearing, CPIO has informed a CIC Decision that does not even mention out-of-turn hearing. Point-3: Instead of COPY / path from Home-page of policy followed and procedure for applying for priority hearing, CPIO has given Circulars of CIC link on Home-page, i.e., to start of running index of Circulars (354 as of today), on which search using out-of-turn or priority or precedence yields no records and search using hearing yields 3 records, including Circular for scheduling of hearing dated 22-Jul-2016. That says the Commission may decide to accord precedence - but does not spell out either the norms followed by the Commission or the procedure by which appellants / complainants may apply. REQUEST: Please provide the requested information with your order. If no procedures for applying for and/or no norms for according precedence in hearings are laid down, that may be informed instead for point-3. NB: I request hearing or decision by speaking order in case you are inclined to reject this appeal. In case you are inclined to direct CPIO to revisit, please let that be interim order (conveyed to me by email) and do not dispose of this appeal on RTI Online till after revised reply has been furnished and I have filed addendum appeal or conveyed that none is needed. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point 1 CPIO(Admin Section) is directed to revisit the Point no. 1 of the RTI application and supply a copy of Agenda no. 2 as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 10.02.2023. For Point 2 & 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. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1392 | CICOM/A/E/23/00015 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 05-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01208 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: FACTS: In online request dated 04-Dec-22 No. CICOM/R/E/22/01208, I attached Minutes of CIC Meeting held on 10-Apr-2007 and requested, w.r.t para-6(c) therein, COPIES of: 1. Agenda / record of discussion, if available, of the decision to take seriously and follow up strictly the cases in which information has not been given due to the fact that files are not traceable. 2. Cases, if any, in which the Commission resorted to section 204 of the IPC pursuant to the decision on 10-Apr-2007. 3. Current procedures for cases in which information has not been given due to the fact that files are not traceable. (If published on CIC website, path from Home-page may be provided instead of copy). On 04-Jan-23, my request was disposed of online with uploaded letter No. 2023/CIC/ ADMN/RTI dated 3rd January 2023 stating point-wise under Information provided: 1&2. No such information is maintained. 3. There is no laid down procedure and decision is taken on case to case basis. GROUNDS: Point-1: Reply saying that no information is maintained of Agenda or record of discussion of CIC Meetings is PATENTLY FALSE. CIC meetings serve statutory purpose u/s 12(4). Statutory purposes are not served off-the-record and maintenance of records is mandated u/s 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act. Point-2&3: Reply for point-2 saying that information of cases is not maintained CONTRADICTS the assertion in Reply for point-3 that decision is taken on case-to-case basis. Specifically, Reply to point-3 cannot be based on record if record is not maintained and Reply to point-2 cannot be true if (case-to-case) decisions are taken because actions would have been taken on record to give effect to those decisions. REQUEST: Please provide, with you order, COPY of Agenda or record of discussion sought in point-1 and, for point-2 & 3, the information of cases in which decision was taken on case-to-case basis. If there are no cases in which the Commission took seriously and followed up strictly matters of untraceable files, that may be informed instead for point-2 & 3. NB: I request hearing or decision by speaking order in case you are inclined to reject this appeal. In case you are inclined to direct CPIO to revisit, please let that be interim order (conveyed to me by email) and do not dispose of this appeal on RTI Online till after revised reply has been furnished and I have filed addendum appeal or conveyed that none is needed. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point 1 CPIO(Admin Section) is directed to revisit the Point no. 1 of the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 10.02.2023. For Point 2 & 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. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1393 | CICOM/A/E/23/00018 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 05-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.-CICOM/R/E/22/01211 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: FACTS: In online request dated 04-Dec-22 No. CICOM/R/E/22/01211, I attached Minutes of CIC Meetings held on 05-Sep-2017 and 03-Apr-2018 and requested COPIES of: 1. Agenda No. 3 (Format for notice of hearing) that was approved on 05-Sep-2017. 2. Agenda No. 4 (Notice of Hearing) that was approved on 03-Apr-2018. 3. The approved format for Notice of Hearing currently in use along with the approval thereof. On 04-Jan-23, my request was disposed of online with uploaded letter No. 2023/CIC/ ADMN/RTI dated 3rd January 2023 stating point-wise under Information provided: 1&2. The information is available in the CIC website the URLs of which is given below: https://cic.gov.in/ 3. Approved format for Notice of Hearing currently in use is enclosed herewith. GROUNDS: Point-1&2: Instead of providing information in the form requested (COPY), as mandated u/s 7(9), CPIO has given INCORRECT Reply. URL informed is of CIC website on Home-page that does not mention or provide access to Agenda of CIC Meetings. Further, because CIC meeting Agenda is a category nowhere mentioned in CIC s statement u/s 4(1)(b)(vi) (printout ATTACHED), it is not clear if this request was duly processed by CPIO concerned or anyhow disposed of pursuant to incorrect forwarding. Point-3: Reply is INCOMPLETE. Copy of approval of the format has not been provided. REQUEST: Please provide with your order the COPIES of Agenda requested in point-1 & 2 and of the approval requested in point-3. NB: In case you are inclined to direct CPIO to revisit, please let that be interim order (conveyed to me by email) and do not dispose of this appeal on RTI Online till after revised reply has been furnished and I have filed addendum appeal or conveyed that none is needed. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point 1 & 2 CPIO(Admin Section) is directed to revisit the Point no. 1 and 2 of the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 13.02.2023. For Point 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. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1394 | CICOM/A/E/23/00021 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 05-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01218 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: FACTS: In online request dated 04-Dec-22 No. CICOM/R/E/22/01218, I attached Minutes of CIC Meeting held on 23-Aug-2016 and requested COPIES of: 1. Agenda No. 4 (Setting up of National Coordination Committee for monitoring implementation of RTI Act) 2. The earlier stand taken that was endorsed in the meeting held on 23-Aug-2016. 3. The statement u/s 4(1)(b)(viii) of any board / council / committee / other body constituted for purpose of CIC functions u/s 25 of the RTI Act. (I mentioned in note that CIC statement u/s 4(1)(b)(viii) is limited to Internal Complaints Committee). On 04-Jan-23, my request was disposed of online with uploaded letter No. 2023/CIC/ ADMN/RTI dated 3rd January 2023 stating point-wise under Information provided: 1. The information is available in the CIC website the URLs of which is given below: https://cic.gov.in/ 2. No such information is available in the section 3. A committee under the subs section (3) of clause (g) of Section 25 of the RTI Act was constituted under the Chairmanship of Smt. Juthika Patankar, Former Secretary, CIC. GROUNDS: Point-1: Instead of providing information in form requested (COPY), as mandated u/s 7(9), CPIO has given INCORRECT Reply by way of URL of CIC website Home page that does not mention / provide access to Agenda of CIC Meetings. Further, because CIC meeting Agenda is a category nowhere mentioned in CIC s statement u/s 4(1)(b)(vi) (printout ATTACHED), it is not clear if this request was duly processed by CPIO concerned or anyhow disposed of pursuant to incorrect forwarding. Point-2: COPY has not been provided and Reply is IRRELEVANT. RTI Online request was made to CIC, not to any section. Point-3: COPY has not been provided and Reply is INCOMPLETE / not amounting to statement u/s 4(1)(b)(viii) for the committee informed and not saying that no other body has been constituted. REQUEST: Please provide the requested COPIES with your order. NB: In case you are inclined to direct CPIO to revisit, please let that be interim order (conveyed to me by email) and do not dispose of this appeal on RTI Online till after revised reply has been furnished and I have filed addendum appeal or conveyed that none is needed. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point 1 CPIO(Admin Section) is directed to revisit the Point no. 1 of the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 14.02.2023. For Point 2 & 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. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1395 | CICOM/A/E/23/00023 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 05-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01220 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: FACTS: In online request dated 04-Dec-22 No. CICOM/R/E/22/01220, I attached Minutes of CIC Meeting held on 16-Jan-2019 and requested COPY of Agenda No.3 (Restatement of Values of Judicial Life) that was Noted. On 04-Jan-23, my request was disposed of online with uploaded letter No. 2023/CIC/ ADMN/RTI dated 3rd January 2023 stating under Information provided: The information is available in the CIC website the URLs of which is given below: https://cic.gov.in/ GROUNDS: A) Instead of providing information in form requested (COPIES), as mandated u/s 7(9), CPIO has given INCORRECT Reply. URL informed is Minutes of Meetings link on Home-page, i.e., to start of running index of MOM of CIC meetings since 2005 (259 as of today). No Agenda are accessible from it. B) CIC meeting Agenda is category of documents not mentioned in CIC s statement u/s 4(1)(b)(vi) (printout ATTACHED). As such, it is not clear if the request was duly processed by CPIO concerned or anyhow disposed of pursuant to incorrect forwarding REQUEST: Please provide the requested COPY with your order. NB: In case you are inclined to direct CPIO to revisit, please let that be interim order (conveyed to me by email) and do not dispose of this appeal on RTI Online till after revised reply has been furnished and I have filed addendum appeal or conveyed that none is needed. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. CPIO(Admin Section) is directed to revisit the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and reply to the appellant by 14.02.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1396 | CICOM/A/E/23/00025 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 05-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01222 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: FACTS: In online request dated 04-Dec-22 No. CICOM/R/E/22/01222, I attached Minutes of CIC Meetings held on 27-Mar-2019 and 23-Feb-2022 and requested COPIES of: 1. The suitable reply mentioned in the Minute for Agenda No.5 (Any other item with the permission of the Chair) of the Meeting held on 27-Mar-2019. 2. Agenda No. 3 (Discussion on inputs to be sent to DoPT) of the Meeting held on 23-Feb-2022. On 04-Jan-23, my request was disposed of online with uploaded letter No. 2023/CIC/ ADMN/RTI dated 3rd January 2023 stating point-wise under Information provided: 1. No such information is available. 2. The information is available in the CIC website the URLs of which is given below: https://cic.gov.in/circulars-and-mom/27 GROUNDS: Point-1: COPY has not been provided and Reply is VAGUE. It does not say if the information is not available to me (due to any exemption) or to the answering CPIO (due to disuse of section 5(4) & (5) in CIC) or in CIC (due to suitable reply to DOPT letter No. 1/1/2018 dated 7th March 2018 not having been sent in pursuance of the CIC Meeting decision). Point-2: Instead of information in form requested (COPY), as mandated u/s 7(9), INCORRECT Reply has been given. URL informed is Minutes of Meetings link on Home-page, i.e., to start of running index of MOM of CIC meetings since 2005 (259 as of today). No Agenda are accessible it. Further, because CIC meeting Agenda is a category nowhere mentioned in CIC s statement u/s 4(1)(b)(vi) (printout ATTACHED), it is not clear if this request was duly processed by CPIO concerned or anyhow disposed of pursuant to incorrect forwarding. REQUEST: Please provide the requested COPIES with your order. For point-1, if the suitable reply was not sent, that may be informed instead. NB: In case you are inclined to direct CPIO to revisit, please let that be interim order (conveyed to me by email) and do not dispose of this appeal on RTI Online till after revised reply has been furnished and I have filed addendum appeal or conveyed that none is needed. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point 1- 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 2 - CPIO(Admin Section) is directed to revisit the Point 2 of the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and reply to the appellant by 15.02.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1397 | CICOM/A/E/23/00026 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 05-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01229 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Date: 05.01.2023 To The First Appellate Authority CIC , New Delhi Subject: Submission of First Appeal under section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. Sir/Madam Kindly refer to my online RTI application vide Reference No. CICOM/R/E/22/01229 dated 05.12.2022. In response the CPIO, CIC provided information online on 04.01.2023. As I am not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO in respect of the RTI query at Point No.1, I prefer to submit First Appeal. The grounds for appeal are given below: Point No. 1 I. I requested to provide the copy of rule / guideline wherein it is mentioned that Office of Honorable IC (Ms. Saroj Punhani) is not required to adhere the RTI Rule 12(1) while conducting CIC Hearing for Appeal / Complaint. II. The CPIO intimates that no rule exists. However it is further clarified that whenever Hearing notice is generated, SMS/Email alert is also system generated goes to the mobile phone/Email ID of the Appellant. In this case notice was generated on 08.11.2022 but the physical copy of the notice could be dispatched on 11.11.2022. III. I thoroughly checked both my mobile phone (9452591637) and the Email (ndas31@gmail.com) but I could not find any SMS/Email alert regarding the CIC Hearing on 18.11.2022. As evidence, I am enclosing the Print Screen Shot of my Email search in respect of the case No. CIC/DOEXP/C/2022/601584. All the Email alerts in respect of the above mentioned case EXCEPT the CIC Hearing Notice were received in my mail. IV. It appears that the CPIO, CIC provided wrong / misleading information. In view of above, I am requesting you to direct the CPIO, CIC to provide the evidence in support of his/her statement that whenever Hearing notice is generated SMS/Email alert is also system generated goes to the mobile phone/Email ID of the Appellant. 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 |
| 1398 | CICOM/A/E/23/00014 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 05-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01207 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: FACTS: In online request dated 04-Dec-22 No. CICOM/R/E/22/01207, I attached Minutes of CIC Meeting held on 28-Nov-2017 and requested COPIES of: 1. The material (data of multiple cases filed by a single person and court directions on the matter) brought out by JS(Law) and JS (MR) in pursuance of the direction on Agenda No.5 (Registration of Multiple RTI applications on the same subject) 2. The current procedure / policy / practice regarding cases of multiple Request registrations (If published on CIC website, path from Home-page may be provided instead of copy). On 04-Jan-23, my request was disposed of online with uploaded letter No. 2023/CIC/ ADMN/RTI dated 3rd January 2023 stating point-wise under Information provided: 1. The information is available in the CIC website the URLs of which is given below: https://cic.gov.in/circulars-and-mom/27 2. No such specific orders are available on record however the issue discussed in the Commission s meeting is available in the minutes of the Commission on the linked mention above. GROUNDS: A) Instead of providing information in form requested (COPIES or, for point-2, path from Home-page), as mandated u/s 7(9), CPIO has given INCORRECT Reply by way of URL that is Minutes of Meetings link on Home-page, i.e., to index of MOM of meetings since 2005 (259 as of today). Neither the material brought out by JS(Law) and JS (MR) in pursuance of the direction on Agenda No.5 nor any record of discussion in CIC Meeting is available from it. B) Point-1 apparently concerns M&R section and Legal Cell and has been wrongly processed in Admin Section. REQUEST: Please provide the requested COPIES with your order. For point-1, if no material was brought out by JS(Law) and JS (MR), that may be informed instead. For point-2, precise URL at which the discussion mentioned in Reply is available may be provided instead. NB: In case you are inclined to direct CPIO to revisit, please let that be interim order (conveyed to me by email) and do not dispose of this appeal on RTI Online till after revised reply has been furnished and I have filed addendum appeal or conveyed that none is needed. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point 1 CPIO(Admin Section) is directed to revisit the Point no. 1 of the RTI application and supply a copy of Agenda no. 5 as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 10.02.2023. For Point 2 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 |
| 1399 | CICOM/A/E/23/00016 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 05-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01209 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “FACTS: In online request dated 04-Dec-22 No. CICOM/R/E/22/01209, I attached Minutes of CIC Meeting held on 23-Feb-2016 and requested: 1. Copy of record of action taken, pursuant to the decision on Agenda No.2 (Measures to reduce pendency of cases), to explore feasibility of bunching of the cases based on appellant / public authority subject-wise. 2. Copy of current procedure / policy / practice for bunching of cases. (If published on CIC website, path from Home-page may be provided instead of copy). I had specifically mentioned in end-note disclosure u/s 4(1)(b)(iv) of CIC s norms. Printout is ATTACHED. On 04-Jan-23, my request was disposed of online with uploaded letter No. 2023/CIC/ ADMN/RTI dated 3rd January 2023 stating under Information provided: 1&2. There is no laid down procedure in regard to bunching of cases. However to facilitate applicant and CPIO and for early disposal of pending appeals bunching of cases are resorted to. GROUNDS: A) Instead of information for two points - in form requested (COPIES or, for point-2, path from Home-page), as is mandated u/s 7(9) - CPIO has given combined comment. B) COPY sought in Point-1 has not been provided although it is obvious that action to explore feasibility of bunching was taken because earlier MOM mention bunching subject-wise and current norm disclosed u/s 4(1)(b)(iv) mentions bunching otherwise. C) COPY or information of policy / practice has not been provided for Point-2 although it is obvious from second sentence of Reply (mentioning additional purpose, i.e., to facilitate applicant and CPIO, not mentioned in MOM or norm) that there is some communication in the matter. (It may be mentioned that my matters on 3 different subjects involving 3 different PAs were bunched for hearing on 13-Sep-22 and remained pending till Decisions dated 16-Dec-22. I do not know what purpose was served, but I am an old woman and was hassled by bunching of multiple subject matters. I require the information sought herein to duly apply against bunching of any of my other pending matters). REQUEST: Please provide, with you order, COPY requested in point-1 and, for point-2, information about the practice/s followed for bunching. NB: I request hearing or decision by speaking order in case you are inclined to reject this appeal. In case you are inclined to direct CPIO to revisit, please let that be interim order (conveyed to me by email) and do not dispose of this appeal on RTI Online till after revised reply has been furnished and I have filed addendum appeal or conveyed that none is needed.†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 |
| 1400 | CICOM/A/E/23/00019 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 05-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01215 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: FACTS: In online request dated 04-Dec-22 No. CICOM/R/E/22/01215, I attached Minutes of CIC Meeting held on 25-Sep-2018 and requested COPIES of: 1. Agenda No. 4 (Enquiry procedure for complaints), indicating the proformas approved. 2. Current Enquiry procedure for Complaints u/s 18. (If published on CIC website, path from Home-page may be provided On 04-Jan-23, my request was disposed of online with uploaded letter No. 2023/CIC/ ADMN/RTI dated 3rd January 2023 stating point-wise under Information provided: 1. The information is available in the CIC website the URLs of which is given below: https://cic.gov.in/circulars-and-mom/27 2. There is no specific information in this regard. The procedure are followed as per the RTI Act 2005 and RTI Rules 2021 framed thereunder which are in public domain and can be accessed form the CIC web site. GROUNDS: Point-1: Instead of providing information in the form requested (COPY), as mandated u/s 7(9), CPIO has given INCORRECT Reply by way of Minutes of Meetings link on Home-page, i.e., to start of running index of MOM of CIC meetings since 2005 (259 as of today). No Agenda are accessible from it. Further, because CIC meeting Agenda is a category nowhere mentioned in CIC s statement u/s 4(1)(b)(vi) (printout ATTACHED), it is not clear if this request was duly processed by CPIO concerned or anyhow disposed of pursuant to incorrect forwarding. Point-2: COPY has not been provided, as is required u/s 7(9), and Reply is NOT BASED ON RECORD. RTI Act and Rules do not prescribe procedure for enquiry u/s 18. Any procedure in place (specific or general) has to have been decided in the Commission, such as at the meeting of which Agenda (which would include the proformas approved) is sought in point-1. REQUEST: Please provide the requested COPIES with your order. For point-2, if no procedure at all is in place for enquiry u/s 18 / earlier approvals of some proformas has been reversed, that may be informed instead. NB: In case you are inclined to direct CPIO to revisit, please let that be interim order (conveyed to me by email) and do not dispose of this appeal on RTI Online till after revised reply has been furnished and I have filed addendum appeal or conveyed that none is needed. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point 1 CPIO(Admin Section) is directed to revisit the Point no. 1 of the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 13.02.2023. For Point 2 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 |