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
1471 CICOM/A/P/22/00160 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-11-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00554 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating that “Please intimate me the progress on the status of the reply pending with you as a Second Appellate Authority on my above mentioned letter diarized at your end. No reply received from the CPIO of your office on the above subject till date. Please provide the specific reply as I have sought in my previous letter at earliest.” 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, CPIO & I/c Dak Section and CPIO DR to IC(VN) furnished the reply to the RTI application on 17.11.2022 and 25.11.2022, 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
1472 CICOM/A/P/22/00161 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-11-2022 आर.टी.आई. आवेदन एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी. आई. आवेदन सं CICOM/R/P/22/00557 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/22/00557 तहत मांगी गई सूचना 10 दिन के भीतर दिनांक 23.12.2022 तक अपीलकर्ता को (फ्री ऑफ कॉस्ट) ऑफलाइन प्रेषित की जाये। NA
1473 CICOM/A/P/22/00162 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-11-2022 आर.टी.आई. आवेदन एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी. आई. आवेदन सं CICOM/R/P/22/00477 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/22/00477 तहत मांगी गई सूचना 10 दिन के भीतर अपीलकर्ता को (फ्री ऑफ कॉस्ट) ऑफलाइन प्रेषित की जाये। NA
1474 CICOM/A/P/22/00164 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-11-2022 आर. टी. आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन किया गया। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि इस आदेश के प्राप्ति के दस दिन के भीतर दिनांक 23.12.2022 तक आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/22/00236 के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पुनः स्पष्ट सूचना प्रेषित की जाये। NA
1475 CICOM/A/P/22/00163 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-11-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00551 DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point 1 & 2 In the instant case, the CPIO(Legal Cell) is directed to revisit the RTI application for point no. 1 & 2 and reply to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, by 19.11.2022. For Point 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. 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
1476 CICOM/A/E/22/00292 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-11-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01018 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: Proper information regarding my concern was not provided. 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
1477 CICOM/A/E/22/00289 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-11-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/22/00079 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “This first appeal is filed about 7 days after the 30 day period as my mother expired in October 2022 and as head of family I had to make the arrangements. Delay may be condoned. This appeal is filed on following grounds 1. Because previously this year the CPIO had claimed in RTI to me that the requested information did not exist in CIC, which claim of factum of non-existence was confirmed in First Appeal by the First Appellate Officer of this Commission. 2. Because the information requested has been continually in the possession of the CPIO Shri S.K.Rabbani since start of CIC New Building project 3. Because it is only when I filed Vigilance complaint against the Secretary CIC Ms. Juthika Patankar to DoPT about the curious disappearance of these records that the CPIO whose custody the records was in is now admitting that these records exist. My Vigilance Complaint is pending with CVO and JS(Admin)/CIC. It is pertinent that the CVO/CIC refused to meet me to hear my vigilance grievance against Shri S.K.Rabbani for hiding this information. 4. Because it is only when I filed a RTI to the Council of Architects regarding the strange disappearance of these records, which was transferred to CIC, is CPIO Shri Rabbani admitting that these records exist. 5. Because when I personally met Shri Rabbani regarding these records he was extremely discourteous to a senior citizen like myself and once again reiterated that no such records existed in CIC, which caused me to file RTI request to Council of Architects. 6. Because when I spoke to JS (MoRE) he personally informed me that the said requested records were not with him in his role as Records Officer of CIC. hence also my RTI request to Council of Architects 7. Because I believe that the records the CPIO is now putting forward are forgeries and fabrications created after my RTI request to Council of Architecture. 8. Because I shall rely on the numerous emails I have sent the CIC since 2015 / 2016 concerning corruption in the selection of architect(s) for new CIC building. I am a qualified engineer who has inspected the CIC building along with a registered architect and we are highly concerned with the poor design and possibly unsafe design of this building designed by Ar Renu Khanna who was selected by the building contractor M/s NBCC. 9. Because the exemption of security vide 8(1)(g) claimed by the corrupt CPIO Shri S.K.Rabbani is an afterthought and complete nonsense. a) Actually it is the NON-DISCLOSURE of this information to qualified professionals which endangers my life if I have to visit the unsafe CIC building. See Delhi High Court judgment on Ar. Sudhir Vohra versus DMRC in LPA No. 145/2011, b) The identity of the Architect is public knowledge on CIC website c) The information is statutory record and public document. It was never given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes. PRAYERS: 1. Provide me personal hearing 2. Provide me all information free 3. Condone delay.” 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 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005, “information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes” 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
1478 CICOM/A/E/22/00291 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-11-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01051 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that RESPECTED SIR MES EK SERVICE PROVIDE SNASTHA HAI JO AIR FORCE ARMY NAVY KO BIJLI PAANI MAKAN PROVIDE KARTI HAI AAP NET PAR CHECK KAR SAKTE HAIN PHIR WAC KE INSTALATION KAHAN SE AA GAYE JABKI ISI GE AIR FORCE AUR CWE AIR FORCE DONO NE MUJHE KAI BAR SUPPLY ORDER AUR TENDERS KI COPY DI HAIN AGAR AAP MUJHE KOI MAIL ID DIJIYE MAIN US PAR BAHUT SARE CIC DECEISIONS AND JO INHONE MUJHE DIYA USKI COPY BHEJ DETA HUN AUR INHONE JO SARKAR KA PAISA APNI POCKET ME DALA VO PROOF BHI HO GAYA MAINE AAPKO CIC KE DECEISIONS KI COPY BHEJI THI JINME MUJHE SUPPLY ORDER AUR JOB ORDERS KI COPY DI GAYEE HAIN 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 the first appeal do not coincide with the information sought in the RTI application. 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
1479 CICOM/A/E/22/00290 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-11-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01030/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Subject : Online RTI First Appeal Petition dated 28/11/2022 RTI Application No : CICOM/R/E/22/01030/1 Dated 21/10/2022 Respondent CPIO : Mr. B.S. KASANA , Dy. Registrar to IC ( AP ) CPIO Response : Online reply Dated 14/11/2022 Respected FAA Madam , Please find ANNEXED herewith PDF Copy of the First Appeal Petition dated 28/11/2022 which is self-explanatory in nature . Now, the undersigned RTI Appellant vehemently prays that this Honorable FAA may kindly be pleased to direct the Respondent CPIO to provide NECESSARY HELP by the way of supplying the desired information ( 06 points wise ) in a proper Reply Letter format as per the model guidelines issued by DoPT ( Govt. of India ) Office Memorandum No : 1/14/2008-IR Dated 28/07/2008 which is self-explanatory . For which Act of Kindness, the undersigned RTI Appellant shall be grateful & indebted to this Honorable First Appellate Authority .” 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
1480 CICOM/A/E/22/00288 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-11-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00962/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “PRAYERS: 1. Kindly grant me personal hearing in the matter, with adequate notice, which I shall attend through my authorized representative situated at New Delhi. Such hearing has been held by the Commission, repeatedly, as being mandatory requirement if so requested, and order passed by First Appellate without hearing being void in law and rendering the officer liable for departmental prosecution. 2. Kindly pass a reasoned order addressing all the grounds of my appeal. 3. Kindly direct that all information I requested from the replying CPIO be provided to me free of cost by your public authority. 4. Any other reliefs as are just and equitable.” 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. For Point 2 & 6 In the instant case, the CPIO (DR to IC-SP) is directed to revisit the RTI application for Point no. 2 and Point no. 6 and reply to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 05.01.2023. For Point 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