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
1441 CICOM/A/E/22/00304 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 15-12-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01023 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “In response to my RTI application No: CICOM/R/E/22/01023 dated 21-10-2022, I have received the following reply dated 17-11-2022 from DO To IC (SP) - C. A. Joseph ca.joseph@nic.in on 17-11-2022. Reply: “The RTI application was transferred to this registry on 21.10.2022 and Para-2 of said application relates this registry. Thus the reply to Para-2 of the RTI application is as follows:- Non compliance filed by the appellant vide diary No.647413 dated 01 Sept 2022 already exists in the file No.CIC/CVCOM/A/2021/612059 which is pending. Hence the message. There is no compliance paper filed by the CVC in the file.” This reply is technically, scientifically and logically incorrect and misleading for the following reason. In case, details of ‘non-compliance’ exists in respect of case no. CIC/CVCOM/A/2021/612059, as claimed by the CPIO, the message should appear as “NON- COMPLAINCE ALREADY EXISTS” and not as “COMPLAINCE ALREADY EXIST”. Therefore, some manipulation has been done in the electronic system to show misleading message as “COMPLAINCE ALREADY EXIST” so as to mislead the CIC for preventing it from taking action against the CPIO, CVC who intentionally defied the CIC order in CIC/CVCOM/A/2021/612059. The inordinate delay on the part of CIC in firmly dealing with the defiant CPIO, CVC, is suggesting that CIC has already decided not to proceed further urging the compliance of the CIC order as if CIC is afraid of the CPIO, CVC. As the appellant of the case, I have already prayed the CIC to kindly ask the CPIO, CVC, to comply with the CIC order or to take back or call back the CIC decision. However, CIC has not taken any action in this regard. I do not know under which Section of the RTI Act, CIC has decided to remain silent about this non-compliance. DO TO IC (AP) - B S KASANA also supplied incorrect and misleading reply dated 11-11-2022 for para 3 of my RTI application. Neither the appellant nor the respondent never claimed that CVC has supplied synopsis of the case. CPIO cannot make the appellant and the respondent as scape-goats for the fault of the CIC. It is most unfortunate that these bizarre, unexpected and unbelievable developments have happened in CIC which has been established to safe guard the sprit of the RTI Act. Therefore, CIC must ensure the strict compliance of its order or nullify or call back its order. CIC cannot remain idle or as silent spectator or supply incorrect and misleading information. In these circumstances, I request the FAA to kindly intervene and supply correct information and rectify the errors.” 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
1442 CICOM/A/P/22/00184 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 13-12-2022 आर. टी. आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/22/00478 में सूचना मांगी थी जिसके प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रेषित की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों एवं मांगी गई सूचना के अनुसार ही है। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना तथ्यात्मक है और इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है। NA
1443 CICOM/A/E/22/00302 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 13-12-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01106 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “P F Account No and PENSION Account No is to be provided by ITI Ltd Corporate office P F Trust, Banagaluru for period from 13 August 1995 t0 30 January 1997 during my stay with ASCON ROJECT..” 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
1444 CICOM/A/E/22/00301 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-12-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01132 DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. The opportunity of written submission, for the first appeal, provided to the appellant is found to be reasonable opportunity of hearing. The written submissions made by the appellant in his first appeal application are found to be sufficient for consideration by the FAA to arrive at a decision under the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, it was felt that the personal hearing as requested by appellant was not necessary. 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 at “My prayer & Arguments-Point 8.1” mentioned by the appellant in his First Appeal are beyond the mandate of the First Appellate 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
1445 CICOM/A/E/22/00300 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 10-12-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01169 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “HONOURABLE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER SIR , CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION , I HAVE MADE A SECOND APPEAL ON 24 SEPTEMBER 2022 IN FRONT OF YOU HAVING DIARY NUMBER - 651948 AND WHOSE FILE NUMBER - CIC/PMOIN/A/2022/651948 . THEREFORE , I AM REQUESTING FROM YOU SIR , PLEASE PROVIDE ME THE ANSWERS OF THE FOLLOWING FOUR QUESTIONS ON THE BASIS OF THE DIARY NUMBER , FILE NUMBER AND THE ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENT - FIRST QUESTION - WHAT IS THE STATUS REPORT OF MY SECOND APPEAL ? SECOND QUESTION - WHEN WILL THE DISPOSAL OF MY SECOND APPEAL BE DONE ? THIRD QUESTION - QUALITATIVELY , HOW MUCH TIME IT WILL TAKE FOR DISPOSAL OF MY SECOND APPEAL ? FOURTH QUESTION - GENERALLY , HOW MUCH TIME IS TAKEN FOR THE DISPOSAL OF ANY SECOND APPEAL ?.” 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
1446 CICOM/A/P/22/00180 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-12-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00446 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating that “..If the PIO is not the concerned authority to reply to the RTI application, he/she should have transferred the same to the appropriate PIO/Public Authority within 5 days as prescribed under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. By not doing so, the PIO has failed to discharge his /her duties and obligations under the law.” 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. 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
1447 CICOM/A/P/22/00181 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-12-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00518 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “The RTI application has not been dealt with and you can say has not read the application my RTI is not what is the policy but my RTI application is again enclosed itself explanatory. Now the PIO has simply shown disposal but without examine what is the demand in RTI application. Please take action against PIO and oblige and provide RTI documents.” DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. In the instant case, CPIO (Admin Section) is directed to revisit the RTI application and reply to appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, by 30.12.2022. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1448 CICOM/A/P/22/00182 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-12-2022 आर. टी. आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/22/00529 में सूचना मांगी थी जिसके प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (Dak Section) द्वारा प्रेषित की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों एवं मांगी गई सूचना के अनुसार ही है। परंतु आपने अपनी प्रथम अपील में कहा है अभी तक कोई सूचना प्राप्त नहीं कराई गई । जबकि केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा पत्र दिनांक 13.10.2022 के द्वारा सूचना भेजी का चुकी है। तथा सम्बंधित केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी IC (UM) को अग्रसारित की चुकी है। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी IC (UM) को यह निर्देश दिया जाता है कि वह अपीलकर्ता को आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/22/00529 तहत मांगी गई सूचना 10 दिन के भीतर दिनांक 05.01.2023 तक अपीलकर्ता को (फ्री ऑफ कॉस्ट) ऑफलाइन प्रेषित की जाये। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना तथ्यात्मक है और इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है। NA
1449 CICOM/A/P/22/00183 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-12-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00495 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “None of the documents were received as “Certified Copy(ies)” as requested vide my RTI Application dated 19/09/2022, but was received as “True Copy of document/record supplied under the RTI Act”. Even after the payment of additional fee(s) as demanded by the CPIO for supply of the information. As the information was not supplied as per my request it shall be treated as the CPIO has not supplied the information as per the provision(s) of the 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. 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
1450 CICOM/A/E/22/00299 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-12-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01055 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “PIO not only denied to provide information but also protected one of the most corrupt and biased information commissioner from Central Information Commission. I am aware of the fact that FAA is also working under this corrupt information commissioner and he will provide me nothing but as per procedure being a citizen of this country I have to follow rules and regulations of this country. So, as per RTI guidelines I am forced to file appeal with FAA who is working under the biased and corrupt information commissioner Vanaja N Sarna. I am appealing from FAA to take desciplinary action on PIO and provide me information pointwise as per my demand.” 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