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
1411 CICOM/A/E/23/00002 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-01-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01227 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “In response to my Query No:-1, the respected CPIO surprisingly replied to me that “In terms of the provision of the RTI Act 2005, the CPIO is not supposed to create information or ……….” Respected the FAA, as per my limited knowledge the reply of my query may be like that either “Honorable Information Commissioner fulfills his own said order “or “Honorable Information Commissioner did not fulfill his own said order”. In view of the above, still, I am not able to understand how the new information has to be created by writing the above line as mentioned by the said respected CPIO. This clearly transpires that the said CPIO tries his best to conceal information & mislead me in response to my RTI petition. In response to my Query No:-3, the respected CPIO surprisingly again replied to me that “the case is approved by the Honorable Information Commissioner to be enlisted for hearing under section 20 0f the RTI Act”. But again I repeat, in my complaint regarding Non Compliance, dated 23.06.2022 with respect to the said order, I was clearly mentioned that-Please take necessary action as early as possible as the said order is given by the Honorable Information Commissioner. But, Surprisingly due to some unknown reason till date the CIC authority did not mention anywhere regarding the u/s 19(8)(b) Subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 to compensate me due to the detriment suffered by me since 2019. So, I believe that there must be any u/s Subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 available in respect of which compensation regarding detriment suffered by me as per u/s 19(8)(b) Subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 does not possible to provide me by the CIC authority in respect of my written prayer of complaint regarding Non Compliance, dated 23.06.2022, on which I was clearly mentioned that-Please take necessary action as early as possible as the said order is given by The Information Commissioner. 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 priority basis & take appropriate action against the said respected 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, 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
1412 CICOM/A/E/23/00003 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-01-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01212 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “FACTS: In online request dated 04-Dec-22 No. CICOM/R/E/22/01212, I attached corrigendum to Minutes of CIC Meeting held on 20-Sep-2016 and requested COPIES of: 1. Agenda No. 4 (Policy regarding assistance by other persons during hearing) that was approved, and 2. Current policy regarding assistance by other persons during hearing. (If published on CIC website, path from Home-page may be provided instead of copy). I specifically stated in note that I am unable to find the information on CIC website u/s 4(1)(b) or elsewhere. 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. The information is available in the CIC website the link of which is given below: https://cic.gov.in/circulars-and-mom-cic/155. GROUNDS: A) Reply is INCORRECT. URL informed for point-1 is Minute of Meetings link on Home-page, i.e., to start of index 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. URL informed for point-2 is Circulars of CIC link on Home-page, i.e., to start of running index of Circulars (total 354 as of today), not organised subject-wise. B) Information has not been provided in the form requested, as is required u/s 7(9). REQUEST: Please provide the requested COPIES with your order. For point-2, SPECIFIC URL / serial number in the unorganised publication of Circulars of CIC, 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 policy regarding assistance by other persons during hearing). 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. 4 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, collate or segregate 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
1413 CICOM/A/E/23/00004 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-01-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01213 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “FACTS: In online request dated 04-Dec-22 No. CICOM/R/E/22/01213, I attached Minutes of CIC Meeting held on 17-Jul-2018 and requested COPIES of: 1. Agenda No. 6 (Format of Commission s Order) that was Approved, and 2. The approved Format of Commission s Order currently in use along with the approval thereof. 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 format currently in use being same as was approved in 2018). C) Agenda for CIC meetings and formats in use 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, if current format is same as the one approved in 2018, 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 order). 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. 6 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
1414 CICOM/A/E/23/00005 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-01-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01214 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: FACTS: In online request dated 04-Dec-22 No. CICOM/R/E/22/01214, I attached Minutes of CIC Meeting held on 05-Sep-2017 and requested COPIES of: 1. Agenda No. 4 (Delegation of power to enquire u/s 18 of the RTI Act, 2005) that was discussed, and 2. Delegation orders, if any were made. 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 no delegation orders having been made). C) Agenda for CIC meetings and orders for delegation of powers 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, if no delegation orders have been made, 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. 4 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
1415 CICOM/A/P/23/00003 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-01-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00594 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, 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
1416 CICOM/A/P/23/00001 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-01-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00583 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
1417 CICOM/A/P/23/00002 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-01-2023 RTI Ref No CICOM/R/P/22/00592 प्रथम अपील का आधार “अपीलकर्ता को तक़रीबन 50 दिन निकल जाने के उपरांत भी आवेदनकर्ता को मांगी गई जानकारी वर्तमान तक भी नहीं प्रदान की गई।” निर्णय आर.टी.आई. आवेदन एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी. आई. आवेदन सं CICOM/R/P/22/00592 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/22/00592 तहत मांगी गई सूचना 10 दिन के भीतर दिनांक 23.01.2023 तक अपीलकर्ता को (फ्री ऑफ कॉस्ट) ऑफलाइन प्रेषित की जाये। NA
1418 CICOM/A/P/22/00196 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-12-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00600 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating that no reply received till date and prayed for information with cost be provided. 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. In the instant case, the CPIO furnished the reply to the RTI application on 21.12.2022, 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
1419 CICOM/A/P/22/00193 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-12-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/X/22/00010 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “In this regard, I would like to say that the noting page number in the file which came to our knowledge by the two CPIO of the Staff Selection Commission Mr. Mindral and Mr. Meena, then 6 to 9 pages of noting were not given to us by both the CPIO, instead of that file Some pages of No.3-3/2009 P&P have been attached. In this file, department examination 2009 is only group D, in which the result of CSCS cadre has not yet come out, due to which the future of 781 people has been hanged by SSC and DOPT. SSC has not complied to the CIC order. You are requested to take further necessary action.” 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 mandate 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
1420 CICOM/A/P/22/00195 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-12-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00548 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, 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