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
1521 CICOM/A/E/22/00260 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-10-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00927 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “-Surprisingly in response to my queries for both no 1 (one) & 2 (two), the CPIO on 19.10.2022 replied that “Not available on record”. -But, to the best of my knowledge, more than a year (i.e. 365 days) has passed from 12.10.2021 to 19.10.2022. Now, if I consider both, the said order of the Honorable Information Commissioner, dated 12.10.2021 & the said CPIO reply, dated 19.10.2022 then, I come to the conclusion that either the Honorable Information Commissioner did not fulfill his own said order himself or the 15 days were not completed between 12.10.2021 to 19.10.2022. -Again surprisingly in response to my queries no. 3 (three) & 4 (four), the said CPIO on 19.10.2022 replied that “Not available on record” & “In view of no reply from the respondent, the case is approved by Honorable Information Commissioner to be enlisted for hearing under section 20 0f the RTI Act, which would be enlisted for hearing in due course of time”. -I also want to inform you that my submitted RTI petition in respect of which the Honorable Information Commissioner issued the said order is pending since 29.11.2019 & as per u/s 19(8)(b) subject to the provisions of RTI Act 2005 “require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered”. Moreover, in my complaint regarding Non Compliance, dated 23.06.2022 with respect to the said order, dated 12.10.2021, I was clearly mentioned that “Please take necessary action as early as possible as the said order is given by The Information Commissioner” (Copy attached). But, Surprisingly the said CPIO did not mention anywhere in his said reply regarding the u/s 19(8)(b) subject to the provisions of RTI Act 2005. However, in view of the above, I shall forever be indebted to you if you would kindly provide me the more specific information or supporting document/documents than the reply provided by the said CPIO as per u/s 19(1), u/s 19(6) & 6(1) Subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005- 1. About whether the Honorable Information Commissioner did not fulfill his own said order himself or the 15 days were not completed between 12.10.2021 to 19.10.2022. 2. Regarding the full communication address of the authority /commission/ any Government /any organization/ any people’s representative to whom a limited knowledgeable Indian Citizen like me may lodge a complaint/ appeal petition on account of the Honorable Information commissioner’s non-fulfillment of his own order. 3. Regarding the u/s Subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 in respect of which compensation regarding detriment suffered by me as per u/s 19(8)(b) Subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 does not possible to provide in respect of my written prayer of complaint regarding Non Compliance, dated 23.06.2022, on which I was clearly mentioned that “Please take necessary action as early as possible as the said order is given by The Information Commissioner”.” 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
1522 CICOM/A/P/22/00142 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 21-10-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00848 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating that no information was provided by the CPIO. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal application and the RTI application have been perused. In the instant case, CPIO (DR to IC-UM) is directed to reply to the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 25.11.2022, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1523 CICOM/A/P/22/00143 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 21-10-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00421 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating that : “1. The recorded in policy of this Commission is the administrative convenience and ridden with financial capability and policy as stated by the CPIO. When the entire nation is under the inflexible administrative policy of digitization of all records for future purpose the hard copy any document is a irrelevant factor and it is the onus of the concerned institution to get the resources of digitization of all records. An RTI Applicant is not supposed to consider this issue and it is the bounden duty of the CPIO to supply the requested information. 2. The CPIO in the previous case did not complying with the orders and decisions Hon’ble Commission in the above stated file No. any laxity displayed by this Hon’ble Commission, which is the watchdog of implementing RTI Act and this shall not be a cause for the CPIO to define the orders/ decisions of this Hon’ble Commission. 3. The requesting information is very vital to unearth the irregularities in departmental promotional examinations and a serious factor of corruption is embedded in the awarding marks and passing the ineligible candidates for promotion. The main foundational pillar of RTI Act is to contain corruption and accountability of public authority to public.” 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
1524 CICOM/A/P/22/00145 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 21-10-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00505 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating that "information not provided by PIO". DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point No. 1 & 2 In the instant case, CPIO(Admin Section) is directed to revisit the RTI application and reply as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, by 28.11.2022. For Point no. 3 & 4 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
1525 CICOM/A/P/22/00144 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 21-10-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00857 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating that no information was provided by the CPIO. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal application and the RTI application have been perused. In the instant case, CPIO (DR to IC-UM) is directed to reply to the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 25.11.2022, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1526 CICOM/A/E/22/00259 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 21-10-2022 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 सं. CICOM/R/E/22/00925 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
1527 CICOM/A/E/22/00257 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-10-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00920 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: Sir I have not been received any ATR or further appreciate Action in compliance with issued letter by department of personnel and training government of India vide OM -350/147/2022 ADV 3 dated 30 August 022. Hence I am requested to you that pleased to direction CPIO for further proceeding alongwith ATR in compliance.I shall be everpray to you for Act of this kindness. 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
1528 CICOM/A/E/22/00258 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-10-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00828 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: Shri R P Grover, CPIO and Designated Officer IC-HS has disposed off Appellant RTI Application dated 05.09.2022 vide his letter No. CICOM/R/E/22/00828 dated 29.09.2022 and asked to deposit Rs 208/- by way of IPO or cash at the counter of Commission. In compliance to Appellant had deposited Rs. 208/- in cash at counter of Commission, having receipt No. 317 dated 04.10.2022. But Appellant did not receive the copies of relevant copies as requested by him in his RTI application. Thus, CPIO has evidently failed to comply the Under Section 7(3)(a) of the RTI Act 2005. Therefore, now Appellant is entitle to get his requisite copies free of cost in compliance to under section 7(6) of the RTI Act, 2005. Besides, CPIO not only disregarded the under section 7(3)(a) but also compelled to Appellant to approach at the cash counter of Commission at his own expenses for depositing the cash of Rs, 208/- Whereas, the Act is having the provision to deposit of additional fee in online system, if required by the CPIO. But CPIO did not give opportunity to the appellant to deposit additional fee in online system under the RTI Act. Hence, its appearing that the CPIO is having lack of knowledge of the Act so, Appellant had to run 58 (approx.) from Residence, Rohini to CIC, Munirka for which appellant had spent Rs. 800/- Approx for the purpose. Considering the above explanation, it is requested before the First Appellate Authority that it is not only obligatory to direct to the CPIO to provide the copies of requisite information but also direct to pay Rs 1008/- (Rs 208/- and Rs 800/-) to the Appellant. 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 DR to IC-HS supplied the information to the appellant on 03.11.2022 and requested the Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, CIC to refund Rs. 88 to the applicant as “*Annexure 4 of diary no. 139061 and 141691 containing 22 pages each are medical reports of Sh Yogesh Kumar has been withheld under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act being personal 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
1529 CICOM/A/E/22/00255 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 18-10-2022 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 सं. CICOM/R/E/22/00984 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
1530 CICOM/A/E/22/00253 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 14-10-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00981 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “The CPIO can deny information either under Section 8 or Section 9 of the RTI Act, 2005. The contentions of the CPIO in his reply is not only vague but also misleading. In simple terms, the appellant has sought certified copies in respect of diary nos. 606382/2022 and 606372/2022 dated 24/02/2022 respectively. The documents sought by the appellant is in possession of the CPIO then how he can deny information. Further, Office Memorandum of the Department of Personnel and Training dated 17/02/2015 vide file no. 1/32/2013-IR mandates the PIOs and AAs to keep in mind salient features of the RTI Act,2005 and to provide information as per the spirit of the RTI Act which is a transparency law. Copy of the said Office Memorandum is attached herewith for your kind perusal. Kindly provide the desired information to the appellant at the earliest.” DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. 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