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
1621 CICOM/A/E/22/00193 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-07-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00542 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: According to the rules of the Right to Information Act 2005, I have not received the information within the time limit, necessary action should be taken to provide the information. 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, CPIO (DR to IC-UM) has mentioned that delay was caused due to technical glitch and has also offered inspection of the records. Notwithstanding to the above, CPIO (DR to IC-UM) is directed to reply to all the RTI applications within the prescribed time limit as per the RTI Act, 2005. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1622 CICOM/A/E/22/00194 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-07-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/22/00057 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: GROUND FOR APPEAL 1 NO INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED REGARDING POINT NUMBER 01 AND 04 SO FAR 2.REGARDING POINT NUMBER 2&3 I HAVE NOT FOUND ANY INFORMATION OVER THE WEBSITE PLEASE SEND ME THE ATTESTED COPY I WILL PAY 2 RUPEES PER COPY ACCORDING TO RULES OF RTI ACT 2005. 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 and 3 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. CPIO (DR to IC-HS) is directed to revisit the RTI application and reply to the Point no. 1 and Point no. 4 to the appellant by 26.08.2022, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1623 CICOM/A/P/22/00107 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 22-07-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00229 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating that “The First Appellate Authority is requested to look into whether, the letter received by the appellant from the CPIO, is the complete reply to applicants RTI application seeking information about compliance of three decisions of the CIC on three different matters or any further information is yet to be received.” DECISION OF 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 10.06.2022 which was delivered to the appellant on 14.06.2022. The First Appeal has been initiated by the appellant on 18.07.2022, 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
1624 CICOM/A/P/22/00106 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 21-07-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00323 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating that “I am not satisfied with the response and seek information for Points 1 to 4 only.” “I thank you for having kindly forwarded my Points 5 and 6 to the concerned authority i.e., the Bar Council of India. I am still awaiting their response.” 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. 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
1625 CICOM/A/E/22/00192 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 18-07-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00512 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: Sir, I am not at all aggrieved by decision of the CPIO. Shri C.A. Joseph, CPIO & Deputy Registrar, Registry of IC (SP) as he has very frankly provided me the information in his letter No.cicom/r/e/22/00512 dated 1.7.22. However, I hereby file this Appeal before you for certain information which has not been covered in his reply to my query no.1 & 2. Brief facts and Details of Information sought for: SUB: “DIARY NO.110369 4-3-2022 COMPLAINT AGAINST VANJANA SARN CIC – public authority DGFT – pending with Compliance Cell” The CPIO has stated in his letter dated 1-7-2022: No action on link paper has been taken by the Registry as the case once decided is final and CIC has no power, under RTI Act, to review its on decision.” I invite your kind attention to Sub-section (9) of Section 19 reading: “The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give notice of its decision, including any right to appeal, to the complainant and the public authority.” My complaint against the Hon’ble IC (VN) is on the basis of this sub-section of RTI act 2005. In the decision the Hon’ble IC(VN) has not mentioned the right to appeal. Needless to mention that the CPIO while providing information did mention the name of the FAA and likewise the FAA use to suggest making a second appeal if needed. In the same manner the concerned Hon’ble IC should have mentioned the right to appeal (Sub Sec 9 of Sec 19) which is well within the Central Information Commission. Probably the law makers have provided inbuilt system within the apex body i.e. Central Information Commission to hear any complaint against any error in decision. I trust you will kindly appreciate my submission. I appeal, please respond to me as to the section of RTI Act 2005 under which my complaint against the decision of the Hon’ble IC(VN) is not taken into consideration. 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
1626 CICOM/A/P/22/00104 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 13-07-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00285 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating that “As no information to my RTI application has been provided even after the lapse of 34 days, it is requested to kindly look into this matter and necessary action may taken at your end so as to provide necessary information sought in the RTI application dated 08-06-2022.” DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. In the instant case, the CPIO in the reply to the RTI application has stated that the matter is sub-judice and information cannot be furnished. As per the RTI Act, 2005 the nearest exemption to the CPIO’s reply is Section 8(1)(b) “information which has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court;” Accordingly, looking at the information sought, even Section 8(1)(b) does not seem to be an appropriate denial clause. In the light of the above, CPIO is directed to either quote the exemption clause as to why the information cannot be furnished as per the RTI Act, 2005 or provide the information to the appellant by 22.08.2022. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1627 CICOM/A/P/22/00105 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 13-07-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00240 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating that Appellant submitted a final appeal before CIC- New Delhi vide his appeal dated 20-01-2022 regarding non-absorption in railway service under larsgress scheme which disposal by CIC-New Delhi is not yet complied with. Prayer/Relief sought – Reply from CIC, New Delhi on my final appeal dated 20-01-2022 is solicidated at the earliest. 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. 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
1628 CICOM/A/E/22/00191 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-07-2022 Reference RTI No.CICOM/R/E/22/00562 प्रथम अपील का आधार के. ज. सू. अ. (M & R Section) द्वारा पत्र संख्या MR-14011/1/2020-MR-CIC/Part-II दिनांकित 28-06-2022 के माध्यम से सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 की धारा 8(1)(जे) तथा 8(1)(इ) का हवाला देकर सूचना प्रदान करने से इनकार कर दिया गया। जिससे असंतुष्ट होकर आवेदनकर्ता द्वारा प्रथम अपील दाखिल की गई। 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/22/00562 के बिन्दु संख्या 2 तथा 3 के प्रतिउत्तर में के. जन सूचना अधिकारी (M & R Section) द्वारा प्रेषित की गई सूचना, सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार नहीं है। अतः के. जन सूचना अधिकारी (M & R Section) को निर्देशित किया जाता है कि मांगी गई सूचना का पुनः अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को सही, पूर्ण एवं स्पष्ट सूचना प्रदान करें। यह कार्यवाही दिनांक 13/08/2022 तक पूरी करें। तद्नुसार अपील निस्‍तारित की जाती है। NA
1629 CICOM/A/E/22/00188 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-07-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00510 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: This appeal is filed on following GROUNDS. 1. Because of the serious nature of information evasion by the concerned CPIOs, I am requesting for a personal hearing in the first appeal proceedings. 2. Because the CPIO did not provide me any information within the 30 days prescribed u/s 7(1) 3. Because the link provided by CPIO to point no. 1 is false and wrong information and is a list of the Nodal CPIOs and is not the list of the Nodal Officers responsible for section 4 disclosure who have to be either of Joint Secretary rank for deartments or the Additional HoD rank for attached offices. In case of CIC the officer shown at link provided is some non-existent Ram Singh. This shows how poor the working of CIC is if it cannot even maintain such basic records properly. 4. Because the replying CPIO forwarded all the remaining points of my RTI request to other CPIOs of CIC exactly after 30 days thus leaving them no time to reply to me. Such forwards are to be done immediately / without delay and no extra time is allowed for such internal forwards. Such a lapse requires disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against both the CPIO and also the RTI Cell in charge. 4. Because no reply has been received in time for points 2,4, and 5. 5. A totally false and evasive reply for point 5, albeit belated, has been received from CPIO (Admin). PRAYERS:- 1. I be granted personal hearing during first appeal proceedings 2. All requested information be provided to me free of cost in form of hard copy only. I am not interested in doing inspection merely because CIC is not maintaining its records properly u/s 4(1)(a) and is appointing unempowered very junior level consultants as CPIOs who are wasting the time of citizens with such kind of RTI replies. 3. That JS(Admin) and JS(Law) in CIC be treated as deemed CPIOs for this RTI request. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. The opportunity of written submission, for the first appeal, provided to the appellant is found to be reasonable opportunity of hearing. The written submissions made by the appellant in his first appeal application are found to be sufficient for consideration by the FAA to arrive at a decision under the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, it was felt that the personal hearing as requested by appellant was not necessary. 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
1630 CICOM/A/E/22/00189 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-07-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00475 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: This appeal is filed on following grounds 1. Because for points 1 and 2 it is inconceivable that the information requested is not on record claimed by CPIO. The information is being suppressed by CPIO or it has been illegally destroyed. The Records officer of CIC appointed under Public Records Act may kindly be appointed as deemed CPIO u/s 5(4) to trace out these records. 2. Because for point no. 1 and 2 the RTI Act defines record to include (a) any document, manuscript and file; (b) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document; (c) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and (d) any other material produced by a computer or any other device; 3. Because for point no. 1 and 2 I had requested for information, which is not limited only to records, but is any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; 4. Because for point 3, the other replying CPIO does not seem to know difference between an appeal and a complaint under the Act. Rule 8 is for 2nd. Appeals and is not applicable for Complaints. Information provided is false and misleading. 5. Because no reply is received for point 4. 6. Because for points 5 and 7 no correct information has been provided. The replies of all the CPIOs are vague and non-specific. It seems thereby that this Commission is functioning in a completely arbitrary and corrupt manner in the absence of the information requested. Since these points concern the mandatory section 4 disclosures, the designated RTI Nodal officer for CIC may be designated as deemed CPIO u/s 5(4) to provide the information for these points. 7. Because for point 6 the information disclosed is vague and non-specific. The specific details of how these processes are operationalised within CIC and the precise norms and time limits may be given to me. The Registrar of CIC Brig (Retd) Chakravarti be made a deemed CPIO for this point. PRAYERS: 1. All information requested be provided in hard copy and free of cost 2. Personal hearing in first appeal proceedings be granted. 3. The RTI Nodal Officer of CIC be made a deemed CPIO for this request 4. The Public Records Officer of CIC be made a deemed CPIO for this request 5. The Registrar of CIC Brig (Retd) Chakravarti be made a deemed CPIO. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. The opportunity of written submission, for the first appeal, provided to the appellant is found to be reasonable opportunity of hearing. The written submissions made by the appellant in his first appeal application are found to be sufficient for consideration by the FAA to arrive at a decision under the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, it was felt that the personal hearing as requested by appellant was not necessary. 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