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
1581 CICOM/A/E/22/00216 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-09-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00765/10 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: Reason : LD CPIO has rejected information request on 08/09/2022 Shortcoming in the reply for point no. 7 . 1. Information is already complied. Complied figure is annually published in CIC annual returns as required As per RTI Act, 2005 since 2006. 2. I had seen inspection data base of CIC in the past , for this information is available in the data base. 3. LD FAA already directed MR section to provide information in appeal CICOM/A/E/22/00203 on 2/9/2022. 4. In short reply is false to deny malafide – information / data already in compile form. Shortcoming in the reply Point 8 1. Information is already complied. Complied figure is annually published in CIC annual returns as required As per RTI Act, 2005 since 2006. 2. I had seen inspection in the past , for this information is available in the data base. 3. LD FAA already directed MR section to provide information in appeal CICOM/A/E/22/00203 on 2/9/2022. 4. In short reply is false to deny malafide data already in compile form. 5. Appellant had sought only penalty amount to be collected and published due t three separate orders of Rs 25000/= penalty each. Either it is Rs 75,000 or Rs 50000 or Rs 25000. I failed to understand amount of penalty (imposed during for not working as per law) is taken as personal information.. 6. Above information can not be denied to Parliament. Therefore , it can not be exempt information as per provio of Section 8(1) of RTI Act, 2005. Shortcoming of Reply On Point 9 and 10 Shortcoming stated in Point 7 and 8 should be read part of presemnt point shortcomongs. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point No. 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. 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. For Point No. 8,9 & 10 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
1582 CICOM/A/E/22/00215 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-09-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00659/5 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “Reason : LD CPIO has not supply information , even after 30 days . Present Appeal is related to Point 4, 5, 7, and 8 and 9 related to Point 4,5,6 . LD CPIO had not provided information till date. 30 day period to supply information is over on 13/8/2022. And 25 days extra are already over. I had pursued the matter (RTI information is pending) by Personal Visits as well in writing. LD CPIO is stating information will be supplied with in few days since 16/8/2022. However , Information is not received till date.” 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 10.10.2022, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1583 CICOM/A/P/22/00125 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-09-2022 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/22/00356 के प्रतिउत्तर प्रदान की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 के प्रावधानों 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। आपने अपनी प्रथम अपील में कहा है कि मुझे 30.08.2022 तक कोई जानकारी प्राप्त नहीं हुई जबकि केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा दिनांक 22.07.2022 को स्पीड पोस्ट से भेज दिया गया है, जो की प्रथम अपील के आर्डर के साथ सलग्न 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
1584 CICOM/A/E/22/00214 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-09-2022 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/22/00838 के 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। अपीलकर्ता का RTI में नाम होना अनिवार्य 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
1585 CICOM/A/E/22/00213 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-09-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00765/2 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: Present Appeal is related to Point 5 and 9 and 10 related to Point 5 and Point Section 4(1)(b) of RTI Information and its formulation in point 9-10. It is explained that whole information related to MR Section is denied by LD CPIO. , same is explained information sought , reply given and short coming in reply/ thereof. Shortcoming in Point 5 reply. Undersigned was unable to find all detail regarding MIS reports at website URL https://cic.gov.in Very limited information is there. e.g. following information is not available on web. 1Detail of penalty imposed. 2 Detail of Non compliances 3. Detail of Show cause notices pending. In view of above , kindly advise , lD CPIO to provide full information. Shortcoming in on Point 9 and 10 related to Point 5 reply. And Section 4(1)(b) of RTI Act, 2005 information related to MR Section. 1. LD CPIO totally misunderstood the information sought . 2. Information , which is available on web (as per LD CPIO) , can not be exempted information. 3. Appellant is not invited for inspection and copies related to Section 4(1)(b) of RTI act, 2005 information available with MR Section related to MR section , CIC. 4. Appellant is not invited for inspection and copies related to point 5 information available with MR Section related to MR section , CIC. 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
1586 CICOM/A/P/22/00124 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-09-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00419 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating that : “...I have requested to please let me know whether the above said society registered under The Societies Registration Act 1860 is a Public Authority. Rather to give the reply of my letter. He has raised an other question whether RTI Act 2005 is supreme or The Chief Information Commissioner is above the R.T.I. Act 2005(Copy of the CIC letter attached) You are requested to let me know whether the above said Society Registered under The Societies Registration Act 1860 is a Public Authority.” 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. The information once published in public domain may not be treated as information held by a particular public authority. In the instant case, the query raised by the appellant in the First Appeal does 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
1587 CICOM/A/E/22/00211 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-09-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00600 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “1. First Appellate Authority: Varsha Sinha, Joint Secretary (IR) 2. Name of the Appellant-Applicant: Pawan Kumar 4. Particulars of the Central Public Information Officer: Rakesh kumar 5. RTIs Registrations: DOP&T/R/X/22/00292/1 & DOP&T/R/X/22/00291/1 6. Date on which the appellant received the reply to the RTI: 29.07.2022 The RTIs were initially filed with Central Information Commission seeking information about the appointment of Mr Heeralal Samariya and Vanaja N Sarna as Information Commissioners at the CIC. Queries Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the RTIs were transferred to the DoPT. On 7th July 2022, the CPIO at DoPT, Mr Rakesh Kumar, answered Query No. 7 of the RTIs, whereas there was no reply on the queries that were actually presented for reply by way of transfer. It is submitted that the part of the RTIs transferred has not yet been answered yet. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the Appellate Authority provide the information on queries 2, 3, 4, 6 and initiate departmental action under section 20 of the RTI Act and CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964 against the CPIO for gross and willful misconduct. Please also note that appellant will challenge the appointment of CPIOs (without going to the CIC in second appeal) in case the information is not provided when questions touching on public probity have been asked. The appeal is so present for decision.” 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 filed the First Appeal on Point no. 2, 3, 4 and 6 which pertains to other public authority i.e. DoPT in the current case. 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. The First Appeal filed under the RTI Act, 2005 is not permissible to be transferred to another Public Authority. However, the appellant may file the First Appeal with the concerned Public Authority. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1588 CICOM/A/E/22/00212 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-09-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00601 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: 1. With respect to query No. 1 of both RTIs, the CPIO erred in not providing the certified copy of the appointment orders of Mr. Heeralal Samariya and Ms. Vanaja N. Sarna, who are the Information Commissioners at the CIC. It is submitted that the certified copy was needed for further legal action. Moreover, the copy of the appointment order of any public authority must be provided without any demure. Please note there is no copy of the appointment order uploaded on the official website of the CIC. 2. With respect to Query No. 5, the link provided by the CPIO does not work. Notwithstanding the broken link. Therefore, please provide the certified copy of the terms and conditions of service as applicable to Shri Heeralal Samariya and Ms. Vanaja N Sarna and the certified details of thier salary and allowances drawn as Information Commissioner. 3. Queries Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the RTIs were initially transferred to DoPT. Thereafter, on 3rd August 2022, Mr Rakesh Kumar, CPOI of DoPT, sent the queries back to CIC for reply. It is clear from such sending back that Queries Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 6 were sent to DoPT just to delay and obstruct the disclosure of the information. No reply till date has been received from the CPIO of the CIC on the aforesaid queries. Therefore, the FAA is request to provide the information on the said queries and take action against the erring CPIOs. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point 1, 5 & 7 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 07.07.2022 which was delivered to the appellant on 12.07.2022. The First Appeal has been initiated by the appellant on 01.09.2022, 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. For Point 2, 3, 4 and 6 Point no. 2, 3, 4 and 6 pertains to other public authority i.e. DoPT for which the CPIO had forwarded the RTI application to DoPT and RTI No. DOP&T/R/X/22/00291 was generated. 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. The First Appeal filed under the RTI Act, 2005 is not permissible to be transferred to another Public Authority. However, the appellant may file the First Appeal with the concerned Public Authority. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1589 CICOM/A/E/22/00210 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 31-08-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00700 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: 1. It has been mentioned in reply document point no: 1 to deposit Rs 12 in the commission to get the copies of required documents. But the options to do the same have not been suggested as to how the applicant can deposit the money. Whether it can be deposited through postal order / cheque/ DD or any other mode. Please suggest. 2. The applicant had not sought any opinion from the CPIO through point no: 4 of original RTI application. The information has been denied by the CPIO terming the same as seeking opinion. Kindly note that the applicant is a common man and wants to know about the rules followed by CIC in such cases where show cause has been issued. Since the day of hearing, the applicant is in complete dark regarding further developments in the case. Asking about next course of action in such a case is clearly a simple and very common information regarding the procedure that is followed by CIC. There must be some set norms. Seeking such basic information is nowhere alike seeking opinion. It is again being clarified that applicant wants to know the next step in the matter which is a common procedure. 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 In the instant case, CPIO (DR to IC-HS) is directed to indicate the modes of payment by which the appellant can deposit the amount requested by the CPIO for supply of copy of the required documents, by 22.09.2022. For Point No. 2, 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
1590 CICOM/A/P/22/00123 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-08-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00280 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating that “I , the appellant seeks details as follows and appeals on foll. Grounds: 1. Provide me the copy of ‘RTI Notification’ under ‘Resources’ as per reply given in Point (1). Please let me know. 2. The Hon. CPIO/I/c Dak Section has not quoted/sited, the relevant sections/ provisions from RTI Act, 2005, with provision of the copy’s to support/back his claim, such a precedent example/procedure is followed/ allowed/ permitted, as per RTI Act, 2005. Please let me know. Provide me info. 3. Please let me know the ‘ The RTI Notification’ under ‘Resources’ as stated/claimed by you, not included as part or made part of RTI Act, 2005, but kept as ‘RTI Notification’. Provide m info. 4. Please let me know ‘RTI Notification’, Under ‘Resources’ is binding under RTI Act, 2005, i.e. compulsory or non binding/ not compulsory. Provide me infor. 5. The RTI reply dtd. 28.7.22, vide F.No. 3/1/2022/Dak Section, reply of CPIO/I/c Dak Section is null and void not accepted as FAA’s address/details/post/name/tele no. not stated at end of RTI reply nor date stated with signature at end of reply as RTI reply is not personal reply letter of CPIO/I/c Dak Section, but on behalf of I/c Dak Section, Hon. CIC.. Please note. Provide me all info/details form points(01) to (04), as stated above, All the copy’s of reply’s.” 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. 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