| SNo. | Registration No | Appellate Authority Name | Received date | Reply Appeal | Reply Doc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1431 | CICOM/A/E/22/00313 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 24-12-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01161 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “(Appeal on grounds of incomplete information) FACTS: On 27/11/22, w.r.t Minutes of CIC Meeting held on 30-Oct-2019 published on CIC website, I made request No. CICOM/R/E/22/01161 for the following 3 points of information: 1. Copy of the Agenda No. 2 (Implementation of Transparency Audit Software) that was Approved. 2. The file numbers and subject names of the files in which the further Action: JS(MR) / JS(Law) was taken. 3. URLs at which information, if any, was published u/s 4(1)(c) about the approval dated 30-Oct-2019. On 23/12/22, Legal Cell CPIO furnished the following point-wise Reply: 1.The desired information is available in the website of CIC (SOAdmn) 2.Legal Cell File No 6/1/2013/JS(Law)/CIC III/2018 subject Transparency Audit File No of MR Section MR-17011/8/2019-MR-CIC 3.No information is available. GROUNDS: Point-1: Copy has not been provided. Precise URL has also not been provided. Agenda cannot be found on the website. Point-2: Subject of MR Section file has not been provided. Point-3: It is not made clear if no information was published by the CIC or if no information about the publication is available in Legal Cell. REQUEST: Please provide with your order the copy for point-1, the subject of MR Section file for point-2, and response of CIC Nodal Officer for compliance of proactive disclosure guidelines for point-3 of my request dated 27/11/22.†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 reply to 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 31.01.2023. 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 |
| 1432 | CICOM/A/E/22/00311 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 21-12-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01104 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “To, Ms. Roop Avtar Kaur, First Appellate Authority, Central Information Commission, New Delhi. Sub: First appeal U/s 19 of the RTI Act, 2005- reg. R/Madam, With due regard, it is submitted that I had filed an online RTI application vide CICOM/R/E/22/01104 dt. 09.11.2022 U/s 6 of RTI Act, 2005. Reply in respect of my RTI Application has been received from Sh. CA Joseph, DO to IC (SP) vide online reply letter dt. 08.12.2022 stating that Point No.1 to 6 : Information sought against these points are clarifications/interpretation, which do not cover under Section 2 (f) of RTI Act and further in reply to query No. 7, it has been informed “Not seen. Not on record in the concerned case file.†The contention of the CPIO in respect of Point No.1 to 6 is not proper as my queries are not in the form of clarifications/interpretation as they are very specific queries. The reply of the CPIO of query No. 7 is very absurd and unbelievable as CPIO/CVC had supplied the copy of the Action History as per the order of the Hon IC after the proceedings and he was very sure that the Action History was in fact, not the reply of my RTI application dt. 18.04.2021 but only a copy of the Action History which was prepared in CVC for its in-house internal use. Further, what made the CPIO of the CVC to provide a copy of the Action History after the proceedings on 02.11.2022 as in para No. 3 of the notice of Hearing for Appeal/complaint in File No. CIC/CVCOM/A/2021/637729 dated 11.10.2022, it was clearly mentioned that “All the Parties………date of hearing.†There was no reason for the CPIO of the CVC not to follow such instruction of the Hon. IC in supplying the said so called reply well in advance. It is a very serious matter to which the Hon. IC should take note of it as the CPIO of the CVC has intentionally misguided not only the Hon. IC but also the RTI Applicant by supplying the Action History in place of supplying the proper reply of the RTI Application as it is not on the letter head of the CVC containing dispatch number with date, signature of the CPIO, mode of dispatch etc. The Action History can never be the reply of my RTI Application as nowhere it has been mentioned as to whom and at which address it was dispatched. In support of my above submissions about the Action History, I am enclosing a copy of the same (Action History) for ready reference which is self explanatory. It is further respectfully stated that I had asked very pointed, relevant and specific queries in my RTI Application dated 09.11.2022. That, in view of the above submissions, it is respectfully submitted that my appeal for taking appropriate action on my application dated 09.11.2022 may kindly be admitted as First Appeal and necessary order may kindly be passed to the concerned CPIO to consider to give a proper reply in respect of queries Nos. 1 to 7. Encl: as above.†III. 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 |
| 1433 | CICOM/A/E/22/00312 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 21-12-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01263/2 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “The PIO has not provided the information requested by the applicant the FAA is requested to take appropriate action in this regard.†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 |
| 1434 | CICOM/A/E/22/00310 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 20-12-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01147 DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point 1 & 3 CPIO(Admin Section) is directed to reply to Point no. 1 and 3 of the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 27.01.2023. For Point 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 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 |
| 1435 | CICOM/A/E/22/00307 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 20-12-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01192/2 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “The information is incomplete -- second appeal documents etc are still pending - only orders have been forwarded. Kindly see that the papers are forwarded. In the proceedings and post proceedings there are several irregularities and fraud and conspiracies to evidence which the same is required†DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. In the instant case, the CPIO (DR to CIC-YS) is directed to revisit the RTI application for Point no. 28 and Point no. 29 and reply to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 23.01.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1436 | CICOM/A/E/22/00308 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 20-12-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01140 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “Para 2 page 1 of CPIO response ; Closed or not closed – names , designations were asked -- - the question arises how could CIC allow fraudulent compliance reports .- also see para 4 below 2) Further eg how could CIC close CIC/MOCAF/2017/A/606909 where the CPIO in willful flouting of law transferred the application after orders and 3 years after the application . Also see para 4 below 3 ) Names , designations of the persons at CIC who closed the matters stated at para 2 page 1 of CPIos response Also see para 4 below 4) para 3 page 1 of CPIO response – names designations pls and if any other action taken ---- eg if you in discharge of your duties under sec 25(3)(g ) RTIA made any recommendations to Parliament in respect of shortcomings in law , shortcomings in CIC and other public authorities – from the date of inception of CIC till date 5) CPIos response at clause II page 1 ( also see para 4 above ); • Your attention , in addition to Sec 25 RTIA , is also invited to Sec 4(1)(b))(i) to 4(1)(a)(iv) , 4(1)(a)(viii) and whether Parliament has been informed that since even CIC fails to abide by suo motto disclosures , all public authorities will fail to do so • The suo motto disclosures updated frequently are to fix responsibilities 6 ) It may be recalled that in CIC-CICOM-A-2019-636326 conspiracies between CICs employees , legal aid counsels , SCLSC were evidenced and in CIC-CICOM-A-2020-667282 no ATR has been furnished in respect of flouting of law at CIC and removing defects and shortcomings which include placing misleading deceitful fraudulent reports to parliament with wilful material and unlawful omissions some of which are mentioned here ,. 7) The information may be furnished.†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 |
| 1437 | CICOM/A/E/22/00309 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 20-12-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/00799/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Information sought is very clear and specific . SCLSC , its counsels and paid servants of CIC have conspired in CIC/CICOM/A/2019/636326 , CIC/SCOFI/A/2017/149469 and CIC/SCOFI/A/2017/182061 -- my legal aid counsel have instead of highlighting financial statement fraud have questioned my interest in the same . Also see CICOM/A/E/22/00308 and CICOM/A/E/22/00307 . Delay may be condoned on account of several reasons including information and evidence of fraud and flouting of laws of annual reports to Parliament not received even after lawful orders in CIC/power/A/2020/ 667698 and after penalising CPIO in CIC/CAGIN/A/2020/667361 as flouting of such laws since 1956 encouraged all sorts of conspiracies between fraudsters , CAG , legal aid counsels etc etc†DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. In the instant case, the Appellant has submitted the first appeal after 30 days of receipt of reply of the CPIO i.e. reply dated 15.09.2021. The First Appeal has been initiated by the appellant on 20.12.2022, which is well beyond 30 days. So, this appeal cannot be taken into consideration as the time limit for submission of first appeal has already exceeded. The appeal is not admitted as per Subsection (1) of Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1438 | CICOM/A/E/22/00306 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 19-12-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01263/3 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “The links (URL) Provided by the PIO as a reply of Question Number Q 20 and Q 21 is incorrect and is not working. FAA is requested to order the PIO to provide or itself Provide the correct link (URL) for accessing the application.†DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. In the instant case, CPIO (M&R Section) is directed to revisit the RTI application for Point 20 and Point 21 and reply to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, by 19.01.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1439 | CICOM/A/E/22/00305 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 16-12-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01113 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “The reply dated 05-12-2022 of the CPIO (DO TO IC (AP) - B S KASANA), CIC, in response to my RTI application No. CICOM/R/E/22/01113 dated 11-11- 2022, is incorrect and misleading. Therefore this First Appeal is preferred. I have perused the copy of the documents available in the case book, which had been sent by the concerned CPIO and found that those documents were submitted by me only. It is also verified and found that there is no copy of any document submitted by the respondent (CPIO, ICAR) directly to the CIC. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the respondent did not submit any document/s or Written Submission to the CIC. On the other hand, I being the appellant submitted the supporting documents along with written submission and sent a copy to the respondent as instructed by the CIC. In his reply dated 05-12-2022, the CPIO, CIC, has intentionally misleading and wrongly claiming without verifying the records that ‘those records submitted with the Commission by the respondent (total 26 pages)’. The concerned CPIO must not have claimed that those records submitted with the Commission by the respondent (total 26 pages), when the respondent did not send any document/s. Kindly note, this appellant is trying to solve the problems/errors created only by the CIC. CIC without conducting any verification hastily came to the wrong conclusion that CVC has supplied only the synopsis of the case to the RTI applicant/appellant. It is most unfortunate. CIC may gracefully admit its errors. At any point of time, neither the appellant nor the respondent never claimed that CVC has supplied synopsis of the case. Even if the appellant or the respondent claims so, it is the duty and responsibility of the Commission to verify the same. CIC has not discharged its duty and responsibilities for the reasons best known to it. It is the CIC which wrongly claimed that CVC has supplied synopsis of the case to the appellant. CIC / CPIO cannot make the appellant and the respondent as scape-goats for the fault/error of the CIC and CPIO cannot issue sweeping statements. It is most unfortunate that these bizarre, unexpected and unbelievable developments and manipulations are happening in CIC which has only been established to safe guard the spirit of the RTI Act and protect the rights of the genuine RTI applicant/appellant. Therefore, CIC must ensure the strict compliance of the provisions of the RTI Act and nullify or call back its defective order. CIC cannot remain idle or as silent spectator or allow its CPIO to supply incorrect and misleading information to the appellant under RTI Act by twisting the facts or easily blame the RTI appellant or the respondent for its mistake. The CPIO need not create information or interpret the information or to solve the problems raised by the Appellant or furnish replies to situational queries or furnish reply to clarifications but just need to supply the true and correct information with proof. However, the CPIO has done the opposite. In these circumstances, I request the FAA to kindly intervene and supply correct information and rectify the errors committed by the CIC and CPIO and give strict instructions to the CPIO to act in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act and ask the CPIO to prove that the appellant or the respondent claimed at any point of time that CVC has supplied synopsis of the case and take back his wrong allegations against this 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 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 |
| 1440 | CICOM/A/E/22/00303 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 15-12-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00717 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 |