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
1451 CICOM/A/E/22/00297 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-12-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01004 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Penalty for non providing of information may please be imposed for willful disobeying of CIC orders.” 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. 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. 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
1452 CICOM/A/E/22/00298 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-12-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01116 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “CPIO has refused access to the information requested intimating the link of RTI which I have already carefully but nowhere mentioned about the information I sought vide my RTI application. If CIC is doing this kind of practice such as providing the link to RTI Act then other Ministries/Department what will do. Please reconsider my RTI application and provide information point-wise clearly mentioning the reply which fulfills my purpose.” 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. 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
1453 CICOM/A/E/22/00296 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-12-2022 ऑनलाइन आर. टी. आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन CICOM/R/P/22/00994 के 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
1454 CICOM/A/P/22/00178 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-12-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00507 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “I had contacted Shri R.P. Singh, CPIO of CIC over telephone no. given but I could get no response from him and the status report of my RTI application could not be found on given website no. Therefore, I hereby apprising the same to Hon’ble FAA of CIC and seek the required records and information as was expected from the CPIO of CIC from your kind self as First Appellate Authority (RTI) and your kind observations under the provisions of Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 as early as possible on a priority basis.” 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 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
1455 CICOM/A/P/22/00179 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-12-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00508 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “I had contacted Shri R.P. Singh, CPIO of CIC over telephone no. given but I could get no response from him and the status report of my RTI application could not be found on given website no. Therefore, I hereby apprise the same to Hon’ble FAA of CIC and seek the required records and information as was expected from the CPIO of CIC from your kind self as First Appellate Authority (RTI) and your kind observations under the provisions of Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 as early as possible on a priority basis.” 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 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
1456 CICOM/A/P/22/00177 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-12-2022 आर.टी.आई. आवेदन एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी. आई. आवेदन सं CICOM/R/P/22/00533 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/22/00533 तहत मांगी गई सूचना 10 दिन के भीतर दिनांक 26.12.2022 तक अपीलकर्ता को (फ्री ऑफ कॉस्ट) ऑफलाइन प्रेषित की जाये। NA
1457 CICOM/A/E/22/00295 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-12-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01206/2 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “FACTS: On 04/12/22, I made online request No. CICOM/R/E/22/01206 for 4 points of information. On 05/12/22, CIC additionally registered Nos. CICOM/R/E/22/01206/1 & 2. On 06/12/22, No. CICOM/R/E/22/01206/2 was disposed of with Reply to Point 4: Current status of total pendency of cases both appeal and complaint is already availble on CIC website link: https://dsscic.nic.in/cause-list-report-web/view-pending-cases GROUNDS: A. CPIO has NOT provided the limited specific information sought in Point-4, i.e., current status of pendency of cases (specifying whether cases are counted pending till hearing or till final decision). He has, instead, provided a link. That is NOT the form in which the information was sought. B. The link provided is of Pending Cases Report, part of MIS Reports including also Monthly Progress Report (giving numbers of cases admitted and disposed of) generated by a CIC software. Such reports are usually for internal use. CPIO has supplied link with no explanation. The desired information is NOT found at the link provided. Specifically: B1. The link provided nowhere specifies whether cases are counted pending till hearing or till final decision. B2. The figures in Pending Cases Reports (PCR) are apparently unvalidated because they are not consistent with those in Monthly Progress Reports (MPR). For example: i) PCR shows 31658 pending cases on 31/12/21. MPR for 2022 shows that 18018 cases were admitted and 27392 disposed of in 2022 as of 06/12/22 - i.e., 22284 cases (31658 plus 18018 minus 27392) would be pending on 06/12/22, but PCR shows 22428 (i.e., 144 more). ii) PCR shows 38770 pending cases on 31/12/20. MPR for 2021 shows that 19752 cases were admitted and 27133 disposed of in 2021 - i.e., 31389 cases (38770 plus 19752 minus 27133) would be pending on 31/12/21, but PCR shows 31658 (i.e., 269 more). iii) PCR shows 34561 pending cases on 31/12/19. MPR for 2020 shows that 18902 cases were admitted and 12136 disposed of in 2020 - i.e., 41327 cases (34561 plus 18902 minus 12136) would be pending on 31/12/20, but PCR shows 38770 (i.e., 2557 less). C. CPIO has apparently INCORRECTLY asserted that the information provided is already available on CIC website. The link provided is NOT ACCESSIBLE from Home-page https://cic.gov.in or Sitemap and SHOULD NOT BE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE because it gives further access to personal data (Name, in lists linked to the figures). REQUEST: (a) Please provide, with your decision, the correct specific information sought in request Point-4. (b) Please provide, with your decision, the path from CIC website Home-page to the link provided (only in case CPIO has correctly said that the information is already available on CIC website). NB: In case you are inclined to reject my appeal, please hold hearing first. In case you are inclined to dispose of by directing CPIO to himself review his decision, please say if the revised decision of CPIO will be open to appeal for review by yourself or CPIO.” 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 and reply to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, by 13.01.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. In case the Appellant is aggrieved by the decision, he/she is free to file second appeal, if he/she so desires, before the Central Information Commission, Baba Gang Nath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi – 110 067 against this order within 90 days. NA
1458 CICOM/A/P/22/00175 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 05-12-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00543 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating that “My application for information dated 11.10.2022, couriered by DTDC courier Ltd., vide AWB 239041384 dated 11.10.2022, delivered in the office of CIC on 13.10.2022 at 03.13 P.M. In view of the above submissions, it is requested to please provide me with the required information of the RTI Act 2005, as per application dated 11.10.2022. Also, penal action as provision of Section 20 of the RTI Act 2005.” 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. In the instant case, the CPIO has already replied to the RTI application on 01.12.2022. 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
1459 CICOM/A/P/22/00176 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 05-12-2022 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/22/00561 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। आपने अपनी प्रथम अपील में कहा है कि मुझे आज तक कोई कागज़ात प्राप्त नहीं कराए गए जबकि केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा पत्र दिनांक 06.12.2022 के द्वारा सूचना भेजी का चुकी है जो कि सलग्न 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
1460 CICOM/A/E/22/00293 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-12-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00825 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that Information has not been given yet it is a request please inform with certified copy of the proof 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 30.09.2022. The First Appeal has been initiated by the appellant on 04.12.2022 which is well beyond 30 days. Appellant has not specified anything which could be taken as sufficient cause for the appellant not filing the appeal in time. 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