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
1481 CICOM/A/E/22/00285 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-11-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01016 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that no response received within the time limit. THE CPIO IS NOT RESPONDED TO MY RTI APPLICATION. IS CIC VIOLATING THE RTI ACT WHAT DO WE EXPECT FROM OTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITIES? DIRECT THE CPIO TO FURNISH ME THE COMPLETE REPLY ASAP DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal and the RTI application have been perused. In the instant case, CPIO (DR to IC-UM) is directed to reply to the RTI application and provide the information as sought by the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 12.12.2022, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1482 CICOM/A/E/22/00286 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-11-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01117 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “FACTS: On 13/11/22, I made online request No. CICOM/R/E/22/01117 for information about the development of Transparency Audit software reported developed by the Commission on page-31 of its Annual Report 2020-21. I sought to know at point-1 whether the software was developed in-house or through outside agency and at point-2 particulars in either case. On 15/11/22, CPIO disposed of my request with Reply saying: Point 1: Software have been developed in-house. Point 2A: With the consultation of NIC, the Commission has developed it in-house. GROUNDS: My request point-2A was: In case it was developed in-house, particulars of persons involved in the development. CPIO has not informed any persons. REQUEST: Please provide with your order the particulars of the persons involved in the software development. In case the information is not available in records held by CPIO, please facilitate CPIO in accessing it from the officers concerned and satisfy yourself of its correctness and completeness before providing it to me.” 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 2A and reply to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, by 05.01.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1483 CICOM/A/E/22/00287 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-11-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01118 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “FACTS: On 13/11/22 I made online request No. CICOM/R/E/22/01118 for FULL DETAILS OF THE GRADING SYSTEM used to assign the grades A, B, C, D & E reported on pp. 287-296 of CIC Annual Report (Annexure-4: Mandatory Disclosure Audit of Respondent Public Authorities Year 2020-21) for 754 PAs that, Report para-3.5.2 states, had communicated transparency audit reports to the Commission through the software developed by the Commission. On 15/11/22 CPIO disposed of my request with online Reply saying: Full details of the Grading System is already available on CIC website and providing a URL. The document published at the URL provided is the report submitted on 12/11/18 by M/s A N Tiwari and M M Ansari to the Commission. GROUNDS: In absence of any disclosure u/s 4(1)(b) about Transparency Audit related functions of CIC, concerned offices are not known and CPIO perhaps does not have access to ALL relevant details. His Reply seems incorrect / incomplete because the 2018 report was of a pilot exercise and all pilot exercise are evaluated and methodologies are refined before replicating or scaling up. (The 2018 report itself has recommendations in this regard). CPIO has not cited any record to say CIC has adopted the grading method used in the pilot exercise of 2018 as a permanent grading system. REQUEST: Please facilitate CPIO in identifying the concerned officers and accessing FULL DETAILS OF THE GRADING SYSTEM reflected in Annual Report 2020-21 and please provide them to me with your order after satisfying yourself of their correctness and completeness. In case the grading system is the same as was piloted in 2018, then please clearly confirm that in your order.” DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. 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 05.01.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1484 CICOM/A/E/22/00284 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-11-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/22/00088 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that incomplete information was 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. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1485 CICOM/A/P/22/00159 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-11-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00398 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating that “...I am asking about 10 categories of RTI Rules & Regulations and CIC Order. I am not received any details or answers. So, I first appeal to you as the information provided by them is misleading details. Sir I humbly ask for their correct answers/ evidence, get it quickly and help” 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 raised by the appellant in the First Appeal do not coincide with the information sought in the RTI Application, as the applicant has sought information on 4 points in the RTI application, whereas the appellant has sought information on 10 points in the First Appeal 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
1486 CICOM/A/E/22/00282 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-11-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01075 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that To The FAA Sir, With due respect the appellant wants to have information about the status of private schools under RTI act,2005 Can anyone ask about private unaided schools ,documents,record,salary of staff etc under RTI Act 2005. Certified copy of any judgement passed by CIC or any Court. 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(RTI Cell) is directed to revisit the RTI application and reply to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, by 09.12.2022. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1487 CICOM/A/E/22/00283 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-11-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/22/00086 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “Dear sir/mam In my rti application I had demand information regarding haryana state rti commission not regarding haryana state public authorities. All the state commissions comes under the center information commission.” 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. State Information Commissions’ do not come under the purview/ambit of Central Information Commission, you are advised to approach the concerned public authority i.e. State Information Commission, Haryana in the instant case. 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
1488 CICOM/A/E/22/00281 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-11-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01008 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that The information sought was full, and complete records in the matter of RTIA complaints scheduled for hearing post postponement on 18.11.2022 and prepostponment earlier . The information was received by email on 11.11.2022 understandably as the file size was far far larger than the limits of rti online . However the orders dt 18.11.2022 in stated that the respondents submitted that The CPIO, Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region in his written submissions dated 09.11.2022 stated that NEHHDC is the CPSE and comes under M/o DoNER, the information sought in the RTI was not available with the Ministry. Moreover, the records are maintained by NEHHDC and the information on the issues raised by the applicant were available with them. Therefore, the RTI application was transferred to NEHHDC to provide a reply to the complainant. This written submission should have been made in response to the RTIA application that it does not have the information as obviously it is flouting law . But the CPIO made this written submission purportedly on 9.11.2022 and did not copy the same to me but introduced in the proceedings . The CIC suo motto duty bound to cause a copy to me failed to do so . Aware of the CIC mischief this RTIA application was made where also this evidence evidencing that the respondent is flouting law the RTIA application was made and this document so purported to be dt 9.11.2022 and purported to be issued by the CPIO DONER was relied upon in the proceedings wilfully denying a copy to me . A list of all such suppressed or fabricated documents along with the said documents duly cross referenced and page numbered may be furnished . These and other strategies were obviously employed with a view to vitiate the proceedings 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
1489 CICOM/A/E/22/00279 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 18-11-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/01029 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that no information was 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. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1490 CICOM/A/E/22/00280 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 18-11-2022 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/22/01013 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। सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा 2 (च) के प्रावधानों के अनुसार एक जन सूचना अधिकारी केवल सम्बंधित लोक प्राधिकरण के रिकॉर्ड में एक सामग्री के रूप में उपलब्ध सूचना ही प्रदान कर सकता 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