| SNo. | Registration No | Appellate Authority Name | Received date | Reply Appeal | Reply Doc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1401 | CICOM/A/E/23/00022 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 05-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01219 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: FACTS: In online request dated 04-Dec-22 No. CICOM/R/E/22/01219, I attached Minutes of CIC Meeting held on 15-Jan-2018 and requested COPIES of: 1. Agenda No. 2 (Operation of Section 25 of the RTI Act 2005) that was approved in principle. 2. The finally approved Operation of Section 25 of the RTI Act 2005. (I mentioned in note that Section 25 is included in the disclosure u/s 4(1)(b)(i) on CIC website, but I am unable to find details about this function of the Commission on the website) 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 information is available in the section GROUNDS: Point-1: Instead of providing information in form requested (COPY), 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 meetings since 2005 (259 as of today). No Agenda are accessible from index or from MOM linked 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 and Reply is IRRELEVANT. RTI Online request was made to CIC, not to any section. If the information of operation of section 25 is not available in the section of the answering CPIO, then the answering CPIO should not have processed this request. 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 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 |
| 1402 | CICOM/A/E/23/00024 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 05-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01221 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: FACTS: In online request dated 04-Dec-22 No. CICOM/R/E/22/01221, I attached Minutes of CIC Meetings held on 03-Jul-2018 and 24-Apr-2019 and requested COPIES of: 1. Agenda No.7 (Bench formation) of Meeting held on 03-Jul-2018. 2. Agenda No. 3 (Supreme Court case for bench formation) of Meeting held on 24-Apr-2019 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. The information is available in the CIC website the URLs of which is given below: https://cic.gov.in/circulars-and-mom/27 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 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 & 2 -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 15.02.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1403 | CICOM/A/E/23/00011 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 05-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01206 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: FACTS: On 04-Dec-22, I made online request No. CICOM/R/E/22/01206 for 4 points of information. On 05-Dec-22, my request was DISPOSED OF with online Reply: RTI transferred to concerned CPIOs. CIC additionally registered Nos. CICOM/R/E/22/01206/1 & 2. On 06-Dec-22, No. CICOM/R/E/22/01206/2 was disposed of by M&R Section CPIO with Reply for point-4 and I filed appeal No. CICOM/A/E/22/00295. On 04-Jan-23, at 3:26 PM, No. CICOM/R/E/22/01206/2 was disposed of by Admin Section CPIO with Reply for all 4 points, including same reply for point-4 as was given by M&R Section CPIO. On 04-Jan-23, at 3:51 PM, my appeal No. CICOM/A/E/22/00295 in respect of point-4 was disposed of with direction to M&R Section CPIO to revisit and reply by 13-Jan-23. GROUNDS: A. On RTI Online, my request No. CICOM/R/E/22/01206 stands DISPOSED OF with online Reply: RTI transferred to concerned CPIOs. The status is obviously illegal because a request made u/s 6(1) can only be disposed of by decision that CPIO is mandated to provide u/s 7(1). B. On RTI Online, also receipts Nos. CICOM/R/E/22/01206/1 & 2 stand DISPOSED OF in my name. The status of both is obviously illegal because I did not make those two requests with fee and it is not open to CPIO to receive and dispose of a request not made u/s 6(1) with fee. C. On RTI Online, point-4 of my request stands disposed of with same Reply in both CIC receipt registration Nos. CICOM/R/E/22/01206/1 & 2. That makes No. CICOM/R/E/22/01206/2 that disposed of only point-4 not only illegal but also redundant. D. RTI Online entries in my name in CIC s RTI-MIS account are statistically false and will contribute toward false reporting u/s 25(3)(a) & (b). I am averse to being party in any measure to dissemination of false data. E. In a somewhat similar case, DOPT had split my request into 3, requiring 3 1st appeals that led to 3 2nd Appeals that the Commission, in its combined Decision, merged-back for the reason that they arose from the same request. To my mind, the scheme of splitting and merging is not only statistically false but also statistically fraudulent. It is perpetrated in my name, without my permission having been sought at any stage. REQUEST: Kindly enquire into the processing of No. CICOM/R/E/22/01206 and have its spawn merged back into it by order on this appeal u/s 19(1) so that I am not required to file separate appeals u/s 19(3) for the Commission to merge back for combined Decision. NB: If you are inclined to reject this appeal, please hold hearing first. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. CPIO(RTI Cell) is directed to reply to grounds raised by the appellant in the instant first appeal as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 15.02.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1404 | CICOM/A/E/23/00013 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 05-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01206/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: FACTS: In online request dated 04-Dec-22 No. CICOM/R/E/22/01206, I attached Minutes of CIC Meeting held on 19-Jun-2018 and requested COPIES of: 1. Agenda No. 7 (Guidelines for Registration of complaints and second appeals) Approved on 19-Jun-2018. 2. The guidelines in use prior to 19-Jun-2018 for Registration of Complaints and Appeals. 3. The current detailed procedure for Registration of Complaints and Appeals, including details of channel for supervision and accountability for ensuring that inadmissible cases are not registered. 4. Current status of pendency of cases (specifying whether cases are counted pending till hearing or till final decision). On 05/12/22, my request was disposed of with online Reply: RTI transferred to concerned CPIOs. CIC additionally registered Nos. CICOM/R/E/22/01206/1 & 2. On 06-Dec-22, No. CICOM/R/E/22/01206/2 was disposed of by M&R Section CPIO with Reply for point-4. My appeal No. CICOM/A/E/22/00295 in the matter was disposed of on 04-Jan-23 with direction to CPIO to revisit and reply by 13-Jan-23. Simultaneously, on 04-Jan-23, Admin Section CPIO disposed of No. CICOM/R/E/22/01206/1 with Reply to all 4 points. Reply for point-4 is same as was provided by M&R Section CPIO. I have no means of knowing who is concerned CPIO. If required my appeal No. CICOM/A/E/22/00295 may be considered part of this appeal that I am confining to points-1 to 3 for which Admin Section CPIO has stated under Information provided: 1. The information is available in the CIC website the URLs of which is given below: https://cic.gov.in/ 2&3. Detailed procedure for registration of Complaints and Appeals area available in section 4(1)(b). GROUNDS: Instead of providing information in the form requested (COPIES), as mandated u/s 7(9), CPIO has given INCORRECT Reply for all points: Point-1: URL informed is of CIC website Home-page that does not mention or provide access to Agenda of CIC Meetings. Point-2&3: Prior and current guidelines can obviously not both be standing published u/s 4(1)(b). CPIO has not specified any clause u/s 4(1)(b). My request pertains to clause (iii). CIC disclosure u/s 4(1)(b)(iii) does NOT contain information of guidelines / channels of supervision and accountability for ensuring that inadmissible cases are not registered. It has a para-9 titled Process of handling of a complaint or second appeal in the Commission, which is NOT detailed to include the required information of channels of supervision and accountability. REQUEST: Please provide the requested information 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, 2 & 3 CPIO(Admin Section) is directed to revisit the RTI application for Point no. 1, 2, & 3 and reply to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 10.02.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1405 | CICOM/A/E/23/00017 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 05-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01210 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: FACTS: In online request dated 04-Dec-22 No. CICOM/R/E/22/01210, I attached Minutes of CIC Meeting held on 05-Jun-2018 and requested COPIES of: 1. Agenda No. 5 (Hearing of cases where more than one public authority has to reply) that was discussed - along with the record of the discussion, if available. 2. The current procedure / policy / practice in cases where more than one public authority has to reply. (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. No such information is available. 2. The Public Authority against whom the appeal is preferred is called for hearing of the Commission. GROUNDS: Instead of information in form requested (COPIES or, for point-2, path from Home-page), as mandated u/s 7(9), EVASIVE comments have been given. Point-1: Comment is apparently only for latter part (record of discussion) and is VAGUE - not specifying if the information is not available to me (due to any exemption) or to CPIO (due to section 5(4) & (5) being in disuse in CIC) or in CIC (because no record of discussion was kept). Point-2: Comment is UNRELATED to the request and only states the obvious for cases in which single PA has to reply. The Commission does have practice/s for cases in which multiple PAs have to reply. (I myself was assisting at a hearing in Sep-22 in which multiple PAs against whom no appeal was preferred were impleaded by the Commission). REQUEST: Please provide the requested COPIES with your order. NB: In case you are inclined to order review by CPIO, please let that be interim order (conveyed to me by email) and do not dispose of this appeal on RTI Online till after the revised reply has been furnished and I have filed addendum appeal / conveyed that I do not wish to appeal. 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 |
| 1406 | CICOM/A/E/23/00007 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 04-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00551 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that no response received within the time limit: “I have not yet been informed on the basis of the attached order.†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 |
| 1407 | CICOM/A/E/23/00009 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 04-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01203 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that no information provided by the CPIO. 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 30.01.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1408 | CICOM/A/E/23/00008 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 04-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01257 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Ground of Appeal Unsatisfied with CIC With reference to RTI Application which was transferred by CIC to sebi as per Record available with CIC which was clubed by sebi with reference to previous Report and this record is also available in CIC Gradiente infotainment have not acknowledged to sebi with reference to shares were transferred to some other party when the matter was taken by sebi Dated 15 Nov 2017 , Dated 10 Jan 2018 against the proceeding which was stopped by sebi with reference to Share Application Money Rs 30000 along with interest which was pending with company from 1995 so that is why it was always Reported by sebi under RTI they cannot provide the confirmation Since it was a created information which was supplied under RTI Act by sebi to Apellant and CIC Dated 8 th Nov 2022 Shares were transferred to some other party.†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 |
| 1409 | CICOM/A/E/23/00001 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 03-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01200 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “Respected FAA sir No response or no information from respected PIO sir in time bound of RTI application, hence finding this first appeal Kindly do justice to me sir by directing PIO sir to provide me asked information in this RTI application†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 23.01.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1410 | CICOM/A/E/23/00006 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 03-01-2023 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01216 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: FACTS: In online request dated 04-Dec-22 No. CICOM/R/E/22/01216, I attached Minutes of CIC Meeting held on 28-Feb-2017 and requested COPIES of: 1. Agenda No. 2 (Finalisation of decisions on Appeals/Complaints) that was approved, and 2. The current procedure / policy / practice for Finalisation of decisions on Appeals/Complaints. (If published on CIC website, path from Home-page may be provided instead of copy). On 03-Jan-23, my request was disposed of with online Reply (A copy of reply has been sent to the applicant is attached herewith) and, uploaded as Reply document, letter No. 2023/CIC/ ADMN/RTI dated 2nd 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 information is available. GROUNDS: A) For point-1, instead of information in the form (COPIES) requested (as mandated u/s 7(9)), INCORRECT Reply has been furnished. URL informed is the MOM link on Home-page, i.e., to index page of MOM all meetings since 2005 (total 259 as of today). No agenda are accessible either from index page or from MOM linked from it. B) For Point-2, 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 current procedure / policy / practice being same as approved in 2017). C) Agenda for CIC meetings and finalised procedure etc are categories of documents not mentioned in the statement that CIC has published u/s 4(1)(b)(vi), which is of custodians of documents. Printout is 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 COPIES with your order. For point-2, current procedure / policy / practice for Finalisation of decisions is same as approved in 2017, that information may be provided instead. NB: a) In case you are inclined to reject this appeal by rejecting the request, please cite specific exemptions with specific justifications applicable to the specific information (viz. Agenda for CIC meetings and approved format of Commission s orders). b) In case you are inclined to order review by CPIO, please let that be interim order (conveyed to me by email) and do not dispose of this appeal on RTI Online till after the revised reply has been furnished and I have filed addendum appeal / conveyed that I do not wish to appeal. 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 03.02.2023. 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 |