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
1561 CICOM/A/P/22/00130 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 22-09-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00346 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating that no information was provided by the CPIO even after expiry of more than two months. 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 26.10.2022, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1562 CICOM/A/P/22/00131 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 22-09-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00388 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating point-wise defects/deficiencies in reply of the RTI application and also stated that no reply was received from the CPIO DR to IC-UM. 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, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,& 8 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. 3, 4, & 5 In the instant case, CPIO (DR to IC-UM) is directed to reply to the RTI application for Point No. 3, 4, and 5 as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 28.10.2022, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1563 CICOM/A/E/22/00231 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 22-09-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00760 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that no substantive information 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. 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
1564 CICOM/A/E/22/00232 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 22-09-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00680 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Sakshi Goyal filed second appeal CIC/CCAKP/A/2019/657945 whose hearing held on 22-Jul-2021 by Hon’ble Commission & Order pronounced on date 22-Jul2021 itself in which applicant participated in the hearing as third party thus applicant is interested party in the said second appeal. However, till now appellant not even get the RTI copy which filed by the Sakshi Goyal thus appellant filed the Online RTI application dated 24-Jul-2022 which registered as CICOM/R/E/22/0068 in Hon’ble Commission to seek the copy of RTI application filed by Sakshi Goyal dated 25-06-2019. However, CPIO dated 23-Aug-2022 denied to provide the information by stating that – “Information sought by the applicant relates to third party hence denied under Section 8(1)(J) of RTI Act.”. On this, appellant has severe grievance/objection as appellant participated in the appeal CIC/CCAKP/A/2019/657945 hearing as ‘Third Party’ thus appellant has all rights to get the copy of RTI Application filed by Sakshi Goyal dated 25-06-2019 although this is the responsibility of CPIO to provide the copy of RTI application before hearing u/s 11 of RTI Act, however, still appellant is running from pillar-to post to get the copy of RTI application. Thus, I request you to kindly be direct to CPIO to provide the copy of RTI application filed by Sakshi Goyal dated 25-06-2019 related to appeal CIC/CCAKP/A/2019/657945 & kindly provide the hearing opportunity to appellant which is necessary provision as pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9095/2012 Manohar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr on dated 13-12-2012 in matter related to Right to Information Act, 2005, itself where Hon’ble Justice(s) explicitly mentioned in para 23 i.e., – “Thus, the principle is clear and settled that right of hearing, even if not provided under a specific statute, the principles of natural justice shall so demand, unless by specific law, it is excluded. It is more so when exercise of authority is likely to vest the person with consequences of civil nature.” DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. As per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 information can be denied which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such 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
1565 CICOM/A/E/22/00230 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 21-09-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00689 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Therefore, for points 1, 5, 6 and 7, the relevant information has not been provided. This is indeed surprising as the information sought relates to basic functioning of the CIC and in the past such information has always been readily provided. The invocation of section 7(9) to deny information is not valid in this case as 1. Firstly, the information sought is routine information related to the functioning of the Central Information Commission and it is a reasonable expectation that the Commission would be maintaining information about the number of show cause notices issued, number of Appeals/Complaints where disciplinary action has been recommended, details of compensation awarded. If compiling the information for the period July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022, would require use of disproportionate resources, the PIO may provide the information in whichever format it is maintained (for instance if it is maintained on a monthly basis). 2. Secondly, in any case under Section 25 of the RTI Act, every Information Commission is required to prepare a report every year giving inter-alia the particulars of any disciplinary action taken against any officer in respect of the administration of this Act. This implies that the CIC is required to in any case compile information about penalties imposed and disciplinary action recommended. Therefore, since it is a statutory requirement to maintain this information, the PIO cannot cite disproportionate diversion of resources to deny information. 3. Thirdly, information can be denied under the RTI Act only if it is exempt under the RTI Act. There is no provision for denying information merely because the sought for information is not available in a compiled form. As per section 7(9) of the RTI Act, information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought. Only if the PIO can show that providing it in that form would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority or would be detrimental to the safety or preservation of the record in question, the information may be provided in a different form. There is no provision for denying the said information under section 7(9) of the RTI Act. The PIO may provide it in a different form. Therefore, I am aggrieved with the reply of the PIO denying the requisite information, and am filling a first appeal under the section 19(1) of the RTI Act. I request the First Appellate Authority to direct the PIO to furnish the complete information as requested in the original application as soon as possible. In case a hearing is held regarding this appeal against denial of information, kindly let me know the date, time and venue of the hearing.” 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, 5, 6 and 7 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
1566 CICOM/A/E/22/00229 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 21-09-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00748 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “To, The faa, Cic,new delhi Sir/madam,my name is ilakkia rasan.the below my 2 petition matter are urgent.so i request to you please assign to judgement immediately.its my life.please fast action needed. CIC/UGCOM/C/2022/609376 and CIC/DHEDU/C/2022/609360 dated 14th feb 2022..thank you” 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
1567 CICOM/A/E/22/00227 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 19-09-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00891 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “I filed RTI application vide: CICOM/R/E/22/00891 to know Once scrutiny is completed ,complaint or appeal is admitted and complaint or appeal number is allotted within how many days the matter should be listed ? Especially when challenged RTI concern Life and Liberty of a person. I received reply from CPIO stating that Sought for interpretation of the RTI Act, which is not covered under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, for desired information, you may like to go through the RTI Act, 2005 which is available on CIC website link https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/RTI-Act_English.pdf. No other information is available on record. However, Information sought is straight forward direct question, I did not ask for interpretation of RTI Act. hence,this first appeal The main reason why I filed aforementioned RTI application was, My CIC appeals and complaints are not getting listed. All my CIC complaint and appeals are related to FIR 0629 of 2019 gachibowli police station hyderabad and PRC 52 of 2021 CNR:TSRA090015542021. I suspect someone deliberately not listing my appeals and complaints. Information sought is required before approaching Hon’ble court. Undermentioned CIC complaints and appeals are not getting listed, filed long time back. CIC/JUSTC/C/2022/626741 CIC/JUSTC/C/2022/632130 CIC/EPFOG/A/2022/645119” 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
1568 CICOM/A/E/22/00226 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 15-09-2022 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/22/00753/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “ Prayer In view of aforesaid foregoing, in order to exhibit the basic preamble and motto of provision of RTI Act, 2005 Appellant requests your good-self, as under- A. To direct the concerned PIO to furnish the information, as sought per point No. 1 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
1569 CICOM/A/P/22/00128 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 14-09-2022 RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00422 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 07.10.2022, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1570 CICOM/A/P/22/00127 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 14-09-2022 आर.टी.आई. आवेदन, प्रदान कि गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी. आई. आवेदन सं CICOM/R/P/22/00376 के प्रतिउत्तर प्रदान की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार ही है। परन्तु केंद्रीय जन - सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रेषित कि गई सूचना ऑनलाइन दी गई है जबकि उसने आर.टी.आई ऑफलाइन की थी। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी को यह निर्देश दिए जाता है कि वह अपीलकर्ता को आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/22/00376 तहत मांगी गई सूचना 10 दिन के भीतर अपीलकर्ता को (फ्री ऑफ कॉस्ट) ऑफलाइन प्रेषित की जाये। NA