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
1541 CICOM/A/E/22/00249 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 10-10-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00958 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “FACTS: I made online Request No. CICOM/R/E/22/00958 dated 03/10/22 for 5 points of information w.r.t para-3.5.2 (Transparency Audit) of the CIC Annual Report 2020-2021. By unsigned letter dated 06/10/22 on subject thereof, my different request No. CICOM/R/E/22/00959 was disposed of. Now by an unsigned letter dated 10/10/22 to Shri Madan Mohan Priye on the subject of No. CICOM/R/T/22/00084 my request No. CICOM/R/E/22/00958 has been disposed of. Status forms of both my requests and the letter to Shri Priye are reproduced in the pdf ATTACHED. Assuming the mix-up to be an exception, on 06/10/22 I had re-filed the wrongly disposed of No. CICOM/R/E/22/00959 and in appeal No. CICOM/A/E/22/00246 have requested to have it expunged. It appears the mix-up was not an exception. At the outset, I urge you to advice CPIO against reckless RTI Online entries that compromise the statistical integrity of the RTI Online MIS. GROUNDS: For all 5 points of my request, CPIO has neither provided the information nor refused it for a reason from u/s 8 or 9, i.e., CPIO has in effect refused access to the requested information - without due cause. Specifically: Point-1: I have requested copy of DOPT OM cited in CIC Annual Report ONLY IF DIFFERENT from the one on DOPT website. Letter dated 06/10/22 to me said copy is enclosed, but it was not. Letter dated 10/10/20 to Shri Priye is copied, after naming me, to DOPT for point no.1 - without making and justifying transfer. Point-2 & 3. I have requested information about the transparency audit software development by CIC and grading system of CIC. CPIO has informed: No such information is available in record. CPIO apparently does not hold the relevant records and has not bothered to access them u/s 5(4). Point-4 & 5. I have requested the URLs at which communications between CIC and PAs through the transparency audit software are accessible to public. CPIO has informed: Information is for official use of PAs only. That is not a reason u/s 8 or 9. It is apparently also not based on record (because CPIO has admitted in reply to point-2 that he has not accessed records related to the software). REQUEST: Please have CPIO take necessary assistance u/s 5(4) and decide each of the 5 points of my request No. CICOM/R/E/22/00958 dated 03/10/22 strictly in accordance with section 7(1). NB: My appeal request is consistent with the RTI Act and response of CPIO is not. In case you are inclined to reject my appeal, please hold hearing first.” 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 CPIO (MR Section) disposed off the online RTI application by inadvertently attaching/uploading reply of RTI No. CICOM/R/T/22/00084, whereas the CPIO was supposed to attach/upload the reply for RTI No. CICOM/R/E/22/00958. However, the CPIO sent the correct copy of the RTI reply to the appellant on 10/10/2022 and as per the speed post tracking no. it was delivered to the appellant on 11/10/2022. 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
1542 CICOM/A/E/22/00248 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 10-10-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00846 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Subject : Appeal petition for providing rational and lawful response to the information sought in the context of the attached RTI reply. Respected Sir, It is humbly submitted that despite having principled responsibility with reference to item no. 1 to 6 of the subjects in question in the attached RTI reply, an unfair statement is being presented by the CPIO, to be the responsibility of the DOPT, but the forwarding process has not been adopted. Apart from this, the reply to item number 7 is not being given even though it is related to CIC. The dissenting remark is also expressed by applicant in the attached RTI reply. Therefore, please take intervention action in the above context and inform the response soon. And please do to provide rational and legitimate response soon. Applicant will always be grateful to you for this. Thanks with regard, Note : Please refer to pdf file.” DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point No. 1 to 6 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. For Point No. 7 In the instant case, the CPIO DR(CR-1) is directed to revisit the RTI application and reply to point no. 7 as per provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 11.11.2022. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1543 CICOM/A/P/22/00135 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-10-2022 आर.टी.आई. आवेदन एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी. आई. आवेदन सं CICOM/R/P/22/00517 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/22/00517 तहत मांगी गई सूचना 10 दिन के भीतर अपीलकर्ता को (फ्री ऑफ कॉस्ट) ऑफलाइन प्रेषित की जाये। NA
1544 CICOM/A/E/22/00247 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-10-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00673 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that no response received within the time limit. 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 11.11.2022, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1545 CICOM/A/E/22/00246 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-10-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00959 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “FACTS: My online request No. CICOM/R/E/22/00959 dated 03/10/22 for 2 points of information has been disposed of on RTI Online on 06/10/22 with letter dated 06/10/22 F. No. MR-14011/1/2020-MR-CIC/Part-II on Subject: RTI application registered vide No. CICOM/R/E/22/00958 dated 03 Oct 2022 (i.e., different request for 5 points of information). GROUNDS: A. DISPOSED OF status of No. CICOM/R/E/22/00959 is obviously illegal and statistically false because a request cannot be disposed of with response to a different request. Regardless of whether it was inadvertent or not, this has obstructed the information and obfuscated further process. I have therefore re-filed the same request as No. CICOM/R/E/22/00970. B. The decision on No. CICOM/R/E/22/00958 with which No. CICOM/R/E/22/00959 has been disposed of is not in accordance with 7(1) r/w 5(4), but I am unable to appeal through RTI Online because No. CICOM/R/E/22/00958 has NOT been DISPOSED OF on it. REQUEST: a) Please have EXPUNGED from the RTI Online portal No. CICOM/R/E/22/00959 that stands illegally and falsely DISPOSED OF in my name (for statistical integrity of the RTI Online MIS that is source of the RTI data reported to Parliament and public through the Annual Reports of the CIC). b) Please have No. CICOM/R/E/22/00958 immediately disposed of on the RTI Online portal so that my right u/s 19(1) is not delayed.” 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 CPIO (MR Section) disposed off the online RTI application by inadvertently attaching/uploading reply of RTI No. CICOM/R/E/22/00958, whereas the CPIO was supposed to attach/upload the reply for RTI No. CICOM/R/E/22/00959. However, the CPIO sent the correct copy of the RTI reply to the appellant on 06/10/2022 and as per the speed post tracking no. it was delivered to the appellant on 07/10/2022. 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
1546 CICOM/A/E/22/00244 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 05-10-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00753/2 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Prayer A. To direct the concerned PIO to furnish the complete information, as sought per point No. 2 of RTI Application NO. CICOM/R/E/22/00753 dated 25.08.2022, in the form as whatever available with concerned PIO, CIC. B. To pass any other Order as deemed fit in the background and circumstances of the case.” 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
1547 CICOM/A/E/22/00245 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 05-10-2022 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/P/22/00440 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 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
1548 CICOM/A/E/22/00241 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-10-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00847 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Copy of order/notification on basis of which appellant were asked to appear before Central Information Commission in person, over the phone, Video Conferencing - 1. Before 15.03.2020. 2. Between 15.03.2020 Till 28.02.2022. 3. After 28.02.2022. If the same applies on State Information Commission CPIO replied - Point no. 1 to 3: Kindly go through the hearing notice available in CAUSE LIST of CIC website www.cic.gov.in or link https://dsscic.nic.in/cause-list-report-web/registry-cause-list/1. REQUESTED INFORMATION NOT SHARED Copy of order/notification If the same applies on State Information Commission UNANSWERED.” 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 appellant has also sought information pertaining to State Information Commissions. The working of State Information Commissions(SICs) does not come under the purview of Central Information Commission. The appellant may file the RTI application with the concerned 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
1549 CICOM/A/E/22/00242 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-10-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00898 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “My Questions 1 – 3. 1. On the hearing date 13-09-2022, since I had difficulty in conveying and understanding information due to the language difference between other parties, I had send a Linked Paper on 13-09-2022 vide Diary No. 649703. I do not see any word mentioning on that on the CIC order. Please confirm whether the CIC had seen and took consideration of my additional document before passing the order. 2. I had filed some additional documents via Link Paper on 09-09-2022 vide Diary No. 649067 and do not see even one word mentioning about that. Please confirm whether the CIC had seen and took consideration of my additional document before passing the order. 3. On the CIC hearing the Commission mentioned to me to focus on my other case and he mentioned the Delhi Police might had traveled on their own expenses between DEL-COK-DEL. For the commission to have a comment that way the possibility I see is either the commission inspected the documents from the Delhi Police and did not found any entries of the travel spending or the Delhi Police told the commission that there is no entry in their records. Why there is no mentioning of that in the order. My Appeal: CPIO’s answer is incorrect. On the Order nowhere it is mention about our Reply and Additional Documents whether is taken for consideration. If it is otherwise please mention on which part of the order it is mentioned about those documents. If you are not able to provide me that information, your comment “self explanatory” is completely wrong.” 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
1550 CICOM/A/P/22/00134 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-10-2022 आर.टी.आई. आवेदन एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी. आई. आवेदन सं CICOM/R/P/22/00450 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/22/00450 तहत मांगी गई सूचना 10 दिन के भीतर अपीलकर्ता को (फ्री ऑफ कॉस्ट) ऑफलाइन प्रेषित की जाये। NA