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
1601 CICOM/A/E/22/00203 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 14-08-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00659 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: Present Appeal is related to Point 6 and 8 and 9 related to Point 6 and Point 8 and 9 related to Section 4(1)(b) of RTI Information and its formulation LD CPIO replied online 28/7/2022 by enclosing letter number F. No. MR14011/1/2020-MR-CIC/Part-II dated 28/7-2022. Reply is as follows Please refer to your above RTI application. Reply to Point 6, 8 & 9 is as under:- Point No. 6 Kindly provide soft copy of records available with Central Information Commission related to Non compliance cases (Pending for more than 1 three months related to Any person) Reply: As information relates to any person, disclosure of this would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual(s), as such, has exemption from disclosure of Information under section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act, 2005, hence cannot be provided to you. Why rejection is wrong/Shortcoming in above Reply. 1. Same information is supplied earlier . Like vide letter No 1/1/2018/cic/mr dated 23/5/2019 in RTI Memo CICom/R/2019/50309 DATED 7/5/2019. Copy is at Page 18-19 2. Information Requested is same related to pending Appeal and Complaint is shown at CIC website. : Desired information is available in the CIC website www.cic.gov.in Direct link: https://dsscic.nic.in/cause-list-report-web/view-pending-cases 3 Information sought can not be called exempted information under section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, when it contain only generic information like case no , date of non compliance , status , Party to case name etc. e.g. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and Hon’ble High Courts are not fools (ignorant of law ) and Published similar and more detailed information(than published by CIC related to pending cases). 4. (Summary of Reply by all deputy Registrar of Commission on Point 5 for present RTI memo is enclosed. At Page 20-21 Summarised Reply shows that Commission is not following is two Rule/ Policies related to pending Non Compliance cases. At Page 20-21 a Providing Opportunity to Appellant / Complainant as required Rule 12 – Presence of Appellant before the Commission of RTI Rules notified on 21/7/2012. Kindly see summarise reply on Point 5(b) of RTI Memo- No specific time limit is fixed. b First come , first decide Policy. Kindly see summarise reply on Point 5(a) 2 of RTI Memo- No specific time limit is fixed. Non Compliance Complaints are pending, although second Appeal as well Complaint filed thereafter are decided long ago for unexplained reasons. Above facts , shows , for unexplained reasons all Deputy Registrar (attached with Information Commissioner) are working against Law/ Rules framed related to Appeal / Complaint disposal .(explained in Point 4 above. This shows strong public interest to get all information. Remaining Point 8-9 LD CPIO reply Related to inspection and copies related to Point 1 to 7 Point No. 8 & 9. Information does not pertains to M&R Section, CPIO/RTI Cell, will forward your RTI application to the concerned CPIO of the concerned Registry(s). Why rejection is wrong/Shortcoming in above Reply.(on Point 8 and 9) Kindly read Reply on point 6 reply, as reply on this point also Secrecy by MR Section (rejection of information, which was given earlier )and not following RTI Rules / Act by all the Deputy Registrar, give strong Public to declare even exemption information allowed by applying Section 10 of RTI Act. MR Section Secrecy hide extant of Non compliance of Law by all Deputy Registrar. Kindly see other relevant facts 1. CIC Section 4 of RTI Compliance is very poor. CIC had employed full time 17 Advocates, even then CIC is using in very large number overruled orders. It means, 17 Advocates are under utilised by CIC or posted in wrong department. 2. And so on. Even , then Information is denied by invoking CIC orders (overruled long ago by Superior orders ) as well totally illogical reasons. 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 (MR Section) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide the information as per the available records and complying with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO is also not supposed to create, collate or sort information that is not a part of the record; the information may be provided as it is available in the records. In case information is denied, CPIO shall quote the appropriate section for such denial from the RTI Act, 2005. CPIO is directed to dispose of the RTI reply by 13/09/2022, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1602 CICOM/A/P/22/00118 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-08-2022 Reference RTI No.CICOM/R/P/22/00219 प्रथम अपील का आधार प्रथम अपील में मांगी हुई सूचना प्रदान करने की बजाय CPIO, (RTI Cell) ने पूर्णत: भ्रामक सूचना प्रदान की है, इस आधार पर, सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा 19 (1) के तहत यह प्रथम अपील दाखिल की गई है। निर्णय संबंधित संचिका (प्रथम अपील आवेदन एवं आर.टी.आई. आवेदन) का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता द्वारा आर. टी. आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/22/00219 दिनांक 05-05-2022 केन्‍द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी को प्रेषित किया गया था तथा प्रथम अपील दिनांक 06-08-2022 को की गई है। सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 की धारा 19 (1) के तहत प्रथम अपील RTI आवेदन करने की तिथि से या सूचना प्राप्ति की तिथि से 30 दिनों के भीतर ही दाखिल किया जाना अपेक्षित है। अपीलकर्ता द्वारा देरी से प्रथम अपील दाखिल किए जाने का कोई कारण भी नहीं बताया गया है। अतः उक्त तथ्यों के आधार पर प्रथम अपील ख़ारिज की जाती है। तद्नुसार अपील निस्‍तारित की जाती है। NA
1603 CICOM/A/P/22/00117 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 10-08-2022 Reference RTI No.CICOM/R/P/22/00239 प्रथम अपील का आधार अपीलकर्ता द्वारा CPIO & I/c Dak Section के पत्र सं.CICOM/R/P/22/00239 दिनांक 16-06-2022 के जवाब से असंतुष्ट होकर, सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा 19 (1) के तहत प्रथम अपील दाखिल की गई है। निर्णय 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/22/00239 के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी & I/c Dak Section द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना, सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार सही है। उल्लेखनीय है कि सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 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 तथा राय/ सुझाव देना, सूचनाओं का निर्माण करना जन सूचना अधिकारी के कर्तव्य के दायरे नहीं आता है। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी & I/c Dak Section द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना तथ्यात्मक है और इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है। तद्नुसार अपील निस्‍तारित की जाती है। NA
1604 CICOM/A/P/22/00116 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-08-2022 Reference RTI No.CICOM/R/P/22/00318 प्रथम अपील का आधार अपीलकर्ता द्वारा CPIO, (RTI Cell) के पत्र सं.CICOM/R/P/22/00318 दिनांक 20-07-2022 के जवाब से असंतुष्ट होकर, सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा 19 (1) के तहत प्रथम अपील दाखिल की गई है। निर्णय 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/22/00318 के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (RTI Cell) द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना, सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार सही है। हालांकि मांगी गई सूचनाओं का अवलोकन करने से यह प्रतीत होता है कि वांछित सूचनाएं उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य सरकार के अधीन लोक प्राधिकरणों से सम्बंधित है। इसलिए अपीलकर्ता को सुझाव दिया जाता है कि अपीलकर्ता उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य सरकार के अधीन लोक प्राधिकरणों में सूचना प्राप्ति हेतु आवेदन कर सकते है। उल्लेखनीय है कि सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 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 (RTI Cell) द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना तथ्यात्मक है और इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है। तद्नुसार अपील निस्‍तारित की जाती है। NA
1605 CICOM/A/E/22/00202 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-08-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/22/00073 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: FACTS: On 02/08/22 I made request No. DOP&T/R/E/22/04277 for access to DOPT files in forms other than physical inspection that CPIO had offered (in lieu of the specific information sought) in a previous matter that is mentioned in endnote in the request. On 04/08/22 my request was forwarded to concerned DOPT CPIO and at the same time, for undisclosed reason, also transferred in whole to CIC vide No. CICOM/R/T/22/00073. On 08/08/22 CIC CPIO & Consultant (S.O) Admin Section has disposed of No. CICOM/R/T/22/00073 on RTI Online by attaching a letter saying: ... the information is given as under ... The information sought is not available. The applicant may, however, like to contact DoP&T enquiring whether such information is available with them. A copy of this reply alongwith a copy of the RTI is being forwarded to the RTI Cell of DoPT. GROUNDS: A) The information that the information sought is not available cannot be given u/s 7. Request for information not held is to be disposed of u/s 6 by return or transfer. The disposed of status of No. CICOM/R/T/22/00073 is false. In RTI Online MIS it will wrongly count as a case in which information has been given if not appealed. I have no choice but to appeal all such NIL Replies, to avoid becoming complicit in falsification of RTI statistics. B) Transfer that DOPT made to CIC was patently impermissible, not meeting either of the two conditions under which transfer is permitted u/s 6(3). It ought to have been rejected by CIC at the threshold by online return / transfer-back. The offline extra-statutory forwarding to DOPT made instead (as some sort of favour attached to rather absurd advice to me to contact DOPT) speaks to disregard for my right to due process. C) Just as DOPT transferred to CIC my request dated 02/08/22 for access to DOPT files, CIC had transferred to DOPT my request dated 02/08/22 for information, if any, held by CIC (for the points in lieu of which DOPT CPIO had offered inspection in the previous matter). Printout of my request No. CICOM/R/E/22/00697, in which the present request to DOPT was mentioned, is attached. The transfer of that request to DOPT and the entertaining of this transfer from DOPT by CIC suggests arbitrariness, especially since my email requesting reason for the transfer to DOPT has not been answered. REQUEST: Please confirm the NIL Reply of CPIO. Please have the forwarding to DOPT withdrawn. Please, if deemed fit, advice CPIO to return instead of disposing of requests for information not held. Intervention would be greatly appreciated for response to my email dated 02/08/22 to rticell@cic.nic.in on the subject of CICOM/R/E/22/00697 dated 02/08/22 (transferred to DOPT on 02/08/22). 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 filed a RTI application with DoPT with RTI No. DOP&T/R/E/22/04277 and it was transferred to Central Information Commission on 04.08.2022 with a RTI No. CICOM/R/T/22/00073. The CPIO(Admin Section) forwarded the reply and the RTI application to the RTI Cell of DoPT as the information sought is not available with the CPIO. 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
1606 CICOM/A/E/22/00201 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-08-2022 Reference RTI No.CICOM/R/E/22/00520 प्रथम अपील का आधार प्रथम अपील में विशेष रूप से Dy. No.618689 तथा Dy. No.617748 का उल्लेख किया गया है। अपीलकर्ता द्वारा के. ज. सू. अ. (DR to IC-UM) के Online उत्तर दिनांक 05-07-2022 से असंतुष्ट होकर प्रथम अपील दाखिल की गई है। निर्णय 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/22/00520 के अंतर्गत केस नंबर CIC/ECRHJ/C/2020/692475-UM से सम्बंधित मांगी गई सूचना से प्रथम अपील करने का आधार अलग प्रतीत होता है। अपीलकर्ता ने अपनी ऑनलाइन प्रथम अपील दिनांक 06-08-2022 के साथ संलग्न हिंदी भाषा में प्रेषित प्रथम अपील पत्र दिनांक 11-07-2022 में विशेष रूप से Dy. No.618689 तथा Dy. No.617748 का उल्लेख किया है। उक्त आर. टी. आई. आवेदन के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (DR to IC-UM) द्वारा प्रेषित की गई सूचना, सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार सही है। उल्लेखनीय है कि सूचना अधिकार के 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, राय/ सुझाव देना, सूचनाओं का निर्माण करना जन सूचना अधिकारी के कर्तव्य के दायरे नहीं आता है। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (DR to IC-UM) द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना तथ्यात्मक है और इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है। तद्नुसार अपील निस्‍तारित की जाती है। NA
1607 CICOM/A/P/22/00115 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-08-2022 Reference RTI No.CICOM/R/P/22/00298 प्रथम अपील का आधार अपीलकर्ता द्वारा RTI आवेदन संख्या CICOM/R/P/22/00298 दिनांक 03.06.2022 के अंतर्गत मांगी गई सूचनाएं, CPIO, (DR to IC-UM) की ओर से निर्धारित समय-सीमा के भीतर नहीं प्राप्त होने के कारण, सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 की धारा 19 (1) के अंतर्गत प्रथम अपील संख्या CICOM/R/A/22/00115 दिनांक 25.07.2022 दायर की गई है। निर्णय संबंधित संचिका (प्रथम अपील एवं आर.टी.आई. आवेदन) का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि आर. टी. आई. आवेदन संख्या CICOM/R/P/22/00298 दिनांक 03.06.2022 के प्रतिउत्तर में मांगी गई सूचना केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (DR to IC-UM) द्वारा अभी तक RTI आवेदनकर्ता को पत्राचार के माध्यम से नहीं प्रदान की गई है। इसलिए सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 की धारा 7 (1) के अंतर्गत निर्धारित समय-सीमा के भीतर सूचना उपलब्ध करवाने की प्रक्रिया में असफल रहने के कारण, केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी, (DR to IC-UM) को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 की धारा 7 (6) के अंतर्गत मांगी गई सूचनाएं, निशुल्क हिंदी भाषा में पत्राचार के माध्यम से प्रेषित करें। यह कार्यवाही दिनांक 09.09.2022 तक पूरी करें। तद्नुसार अपील निस्‍तारित की जाती है। NA
1608 CICOM/A/E/22/00200 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-08-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00614 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
1609 CICOM/A/E/22/00199 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 31-07-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00649/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: Respected Sir/Madam, With utmost respect, the humble appellant/petitioner submits as under, you are requested to please furnish a copy of the relevant record with detail information - Point No.2. Who/what is an appropriate forum as per the Honorable CIC, Order dated 22-12-2021, in detail kindly see Supporting document Page 22-26. Point No.3. Despite of a Non-Compliance application dated 03-03-2022 submitted by the applicant/appellant/petitioner to the Honorable CIC, and a copy sent to the respondent-Bank, whether there is any appropriate, fit and suitable action taken by these authorities, please provide a copy of the same with detail information. My Lord, for details, kindly see the Honorable CIC, Order dated 26-05-2022 Supporting document Page 9-12 read with Page 7-8 PDF Attachment-1 Page 1-9, for necessary clarification of this case. And, there is a clear violation of the reservation Orders of the Government of India, regarding relaxation of standards in departmental competitive examination for promotion and suitable relaxations not given to the applicant/appellant/petitioner, by the respondent-Bank. Despite the fact, there was a clear backlog and reserved vacancies available on the applied posts. And misled to the Honorable A.L.C., (C) Bhopal, the Honorable Division Bench of the High Court, the Honorable Supreme Court, and the Honorable CIC, as it is even clear, so kindly see in detail Supporting document Page 31-37 and its PDF Attachment. Point No. 4. Please provide a copy of the respondent-Bank replied letter dated 15-03-2022, upon which Non-Compliance Complaint dated 03-03-2022, is closed by the Honorable CIC, Order dated 26-05-2022, kindly see Supporting document Page 9-12. Point No. 5. Communication dated 14-04-2022 are diarized in the Honorable CIC, on 18-04-2022 with Diary No. 622099, 622100, 622111, 622113, 622115, 622117 & 622118. A copy of the same is attached herewith in Supporting document PDF Attachment at Page No. 6. 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
1610 CICOM/A/E/22/00196 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-07-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00623 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: kindly the share the approximate month and year on which hearing will be conduct. 1. Diary number - 600445 file number - CIC/MLABE/A/2022/600445. date - 04/01/2022. 2. Diary number - 613305 file number - CIC/MLABE/A/2022/613305. date - 04/03/2022 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