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
1571 CICOM/A/P/22/00126 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/22/00380 के प्रतिउत्तर प्रदान की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार ही है। अपीलकर्ता को CIC की वेबसाइट का लिंक केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी ने दिया है, अपीलकर्ता वेबसाइट के लिंक से सम्बंधित सूचना प्राप्त कर सकता 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
1572 CICOM/A/E/22/00225 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 14-09-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00865/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Provided incomplete information for point 5 asked, kindly give proper/specific officer designation and office address” 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. The information once published in public domain may not be treated as information held by a particular 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
1573 CICOM/A/E/22/00224 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 14-09-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00751 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “please forward the hard copy to tnsic To, The first appealate authority CIC,NEW DELHI Sir/madam, My second appeal your forwarded two petitions to tamilnadu state information commission in cic Diary no:609335/2022 and 609825/2022 dated 14th feb 2022.still I did not get any reply from them. I request to you please pass the order tamilnadu state information commission to give the suitable judgement within 30 days without fail. Its my life.please fast action needed.the matter is urgent..” 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 RTI Act, 2005 one Public Authority cannot direct another Public Authority to provide the information to the appellant. 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
1574 CICOM/A/E/22/00223 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-09-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00692 The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “No response is in receipt from either of the registries or any other CPIO even after 43 days of filing the RTI Application." “I am under treatment for severe lower backpain since 11-5-22 and unable to visit CIC for inspection of the documents. Current prescription dt. 10-9-22 is annexed for your reference. Hence I request for certified copies of the information to be sent by speed/registered post.” 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 as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 04.10.2022, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1575 CICOM/A/E/22/00220 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-09-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/22/00070/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that GROUNDS: 1. Whereas the information sought for was in relation to expenditure incurred on residential upkeep and other matters relating to the present Central Information Commissioners till date. Information under various heads were sought for. 2. The Ld. CPIO was required to answer for the following questions Response to Point 1 and 3 of the RTI 3. The CPIO’s response to these two points are satisfactory. They are not contested. Response to Point 2 of the RTI 4. The Ld. CPIO claims exemption under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. This section reads as follows- “(g) 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;” 5. The Ld. CPIO has not justified why he has invoked this section, which is a violation of the well settled law. This Appellant assumes that it is due to his assumption that it would endanger the life or physical safety of the ICs. 6. The same is wrong and in violation of previous CIC orders. To quote a relevant case, in the matter of Mr. T Gorghate v BSNL in File No. CIC/LS/A/2011/003154, the CIC held as follows 7. The same was held in another matter by CIC in CIC/AD/A/2013/001666-SA. 8. Since this Appellant has sought for the addresses only of official residences of the current ICs, the same cannot be allowed to be exempted u/s 8 of the RTI Act. The Ld. FAA is requested to direct compliance with CIC’s own order and furnishing of information. Response to Point 9 to 11 of the RTI 9. The response of the Ld. CPIO reeks of malice. Whereas every IC is entitled to a domestic help, apart from workers responsible for upkeep of official residence. This Appellant seeks to know the details of expenses incurred for this. 10. What does the Ld. CPIO’s response “information be treated as NIL” mean? What does it imply? There is nothing like “NIL information”. Since every IC avails such help of workers and domestic helps, the information cannot be treated as NIL. The CPIO’s response is highly misleading. 11. In case the CPIO does not hold this information, the RTI must be transferred to those who hold the information. But information cannot be NIL since expenses are being borne from public exchequer. 12. The CPIO’s response is prima-facie false and misleading. I must advise caution. The Ld. CPIO must act with responsibility and in letter and spirit of the RTI Act. Such shoddy and lazy work is not expected of him. 13. The Ld. FAA is requested to direct for furnishing of complete information since ICs avail these facilities and in case, the information lies with someone else, to direct transfer of RTI application. The Ld. FAA is also requested to warn the CPIO from acting in such a lazy and callous manner. Response to Point 2 of the RTI 14. Since Travel expenses are being contested through a separate appeal, the same is not repeated here for the sake of brevity. RELIEF SOUGHT: 15. It is therefore for the abovementioned reasons that the Ld. FAA is requested to direct compliance with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act and accordingly order the Ld. CPIO to provide complete and detailed information, and to make sincere efforts to resolve any doubts and queries of this appellant, failing which the Ld. CPIO’s answers come out to be misleading in nature. 16. That the Ld. CPIO provides a revised response with full details within 10 days via email. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point No. 2 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. 9 & 10 In the instant case, the CPIO (Admin Section) is directed to revisit the RTI application and reply to the point no. 9 and 10 as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, by 17.10.2022. For Point No. 11 & 12 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
1576 CICOM/A/E/22/00219 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-09-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/22/00070 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "It is therefore for the abovementioned reasons that the Ld. FAA, who is an officer senior in rank and wiser in experience to the Ld. CPIO, is requested to direct compliance with the letter and spirit of the RTI Act and accordingly order the Ld. CPIO to provide complete and detailed information, and to make sincere efforts to resolve any doubts and queries of this appellant, failing which the Ld. CPIO’s answers come out to be misleading in nature. 14. That the Ld. CPIO provides a revised response with full details within 10 days via email." DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point No. 4,5&6 In the instant case, the CPIO (GA) is directed to revisit the RTI application and reply to the point no. 4,5 and 6 as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, by 17.10.2022. For Point No. 8 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
1577 CICOM/A/E/22/00221 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-09-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/22/00070/2 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that GROUNDS: 1. Whereas the information sought for was in relation to all the details of the miscellaneous expenses availed by the present Central Information Commissioners till date. 2. The Ld. CPIO, without any due regard to from where the information application is being made, asked this appellant to visit New Delhi and conduct a file inspection. The information is not compiled, it is said. 3. From this statement of the Ld. CPIO, it is established that the information is existing on record- due to which the Ld. CPIO asks this Appellant to visit New Delhi which is 2500 kilometres away from Pondicherry, the current place of residence of this appellant. 4. It is infuriating to note that the Ld. CPIO can even ask an Appellant in the south of India to travel all the way to Delhi just to conduct file inspection. Such instances have happened in the past and the CIC bench of Ld. IC Vanaja Sarna had considered the matter in this Appellant’s case. CIC ORDER ON THE MATTER OF FILE INSPECTION WHEN APPLICANT IS NOT WITHIN CITY LIMITS OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY 5. The Ld. FAA must note the below order of the Hon’ble CIC in my matter titled- Saurav Das Vs. The CPIO, Ministry of Electronics and IT CIC/DEOIT/A/2021/603809, the Hon’ble CIC had observed the following while passing the order dt. 09/03/2021- “From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant was offered inspection by the CPIO which was not availed of by the appellant. The reasons given by the appellant was that it was not practically possible for him to commute from Pondicherry to New Delhi for inspection and this seems to be justified, considering the distance he would have had to travel to inspect the records. The CPIO while offering inspection to any applicant should bear in mind all such extraneous factors and expenses involved before giving any such offer.” “With regard to point no.1, the CPIO in her recent submissions had stated that the file is a voluminous file. It was also enquired from the deemed PIO who is the custodian of the desired information as to how many pages are available in the concerned file, he submitted that there are 150-200 pages in the concerned file. At this point, the appellant submitted that he is willing to bear the photocopying charges for providing him the desired information. The CPIO is therefore directed to provide the said information on point no. 1 to the appellant on payment of photocopying charges.” In the end, the CIC directed the CPIO, MEITY to- “In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide the relevant information on point no. 1 of the RTI application to the appellant after obtaining the requisite photocopying charges from the appellant.” 6. Therefore, the Ld. FAA is requested to direct the Ld. CPIO to comply with this precedent set by the Hon’ble CIC, especially so since the CPIO is a PIO of the CIC, and not to simply call appellants for inspection without thinking of other ways to provide the information. INFORMATION ON MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES 7. This Appellant agrees to the Ld. CPIO’s response that the records maybe voluminous. But the CPIO should have provided a way in which maximum information could be given out without requiring the Applicant to travel all the way to Delhi for file inspection. 8. Therefore, this Appellant suggests that the Ld. CPIO provide the information to the Point 7 in the following form a.Provide the total claim made by each IC under miscellaneous/over the top/other expenses not ordinarily covered under main heads. b. Provide the same in a year-wise, and IC-wise manner for the past 5 years. RELIEF SOUGHT: 9. It is therefore for the abovementioned reasons that the Ld. FAA, keeping in mind the CIC decision in my case, set-aside the order of the CPIO asking me to come for inspection to New Delhi, and direct disclosure of information sought for in the manner detailed in Point 8 above. In doing so, the Ld. CPIO must keep in mind to ensure full and accurate information asked for in the RTI is provided. 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, the CPIO (DDO-Cash) is directed to revisit the RTI application and reply to the Point No. 7 as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, by 21.10.2022. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1578 CICOM/A/E/22/00222 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-09-2022 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/22/00728 में 8 बिंदुओं पर सूचना मांगी थी जिसके प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारियों 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
1579 CICOM/A/E/22/00218 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-09-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/22/00071 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that GROUNDS: 1. Whereas the information sought for was in relation to all the tours undertaken by the present Central Information Commissioners till date. Information under various heads were sought for. 2. The Ld. CPIO, without any due regard to from where the information application is being made, asked this appellant to visit New Delhi and conduct a file inspection. The information is not compiled, it is said. 3. From this statement of the Ld. CPIO, it is established thata. The information is existing on record- due to which the Ld. CPIO asks this Appellant to visit New Delhi which is 2500 kilometres away from Pondicherry, the current place of residence of this appellant. b. The information is not compiled so as to easily facilitate the information request. 4. It is infuriating to note that the Ld. CPIO can even ask an Appellant in the south of India to travel all the way to Delhi just to conduct file inspection. Such instances have happened in the past and the CIC bench of Ld. IC Vanaja Sarna had considered the matter in this Appellant’s case. RELIEF SOUGHT: 14. It is therefore for the abovementioned reasons that the Ld. FAA, who is an officer senior in rank and wiser in experience to the Ld. CPIO, is requested to direct compliance with the RTI Act Section 4 and accordingly order the Ld. CPIO to maintain the tours and travel expenses of ICs in a manner that “facilitates the right to information” which would be in digital format. The exercise is requested to be completed within a reasonable timeframe. 15. It is requested that the Ld. FAA, keeping in mind the CIC decision in my case, set-aside the order of the CPIO asking me to come for inspection to New Delhi, and direct disclosure of all records. In doing so, the Ld. CPIO must keep in mind to ensure every single information asked for in the RTI is provided and to indicate which document answers which RTI point via numbering of the documents, without which this Appellant will not be able to make out what is being answered and the context. 16. That in case the exercise to digitize tours and travel expenses of ICs is completed before the time it would take for the CPIO to make photocopies of the records to furnish to me, the Ld. FAA is requested to direct that the information be provided to me after the subject matter is successfully maintained in a manner that facilitates the right to information in compliance with Section 4 of the RTI Act. 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, the Appellant has submitted the first appeal after 30 days of receipt of reply of the CPIO i.e. reply dated 28.07.2022 which was delivered to the appellant on 01.08.2022. The First Appeal has been initiated by the appellant on 11.09.2022, which is well beyond 30 days. Appellant has not specified anything which could be taken as sufficient cause for the appellant not filing the appeal in time. So, this appeal cannot be taken into consideration as the time limit for submission of first appeal has already exceeded. The appeal is not admitted as per Subsection (1) of Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1580 CICOM/A/E/22/00217 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 10-09-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00746 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: Respected First Appellate Authority Central Information Commission New Delhi Sir, I am aggrieved with this response after second appeal hearing no order was followed by CPIO, after non compliance no information was shared by Post. CIC has. It issued any order regarding compensation. CIC has mentioned in a letter that the information was very delayed by CPIO why no action taken by respective CPIO under RTI act 2005. You are kindly requested please reconsider on this matter and rectify the same. 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 are beyond the mandate of the First Appellate 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