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
1631 CICOM/A/E/22/00190 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-07-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00484 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: This appeal is filed on the following grounds 1. Because this matter involves points of law and evidence and ongoing contempt of court committed by CIC, I request personal hearing in the first appeal proceedings 2. Because the CPIO has refused to accept my RTI request for false and frivolous reasons like that the language of the application is unknown to CPIO. 3. Because the CPIO took 26 days to refuse my RTI request. 4. Because the CIC as well as the Applicant are both located in NCT of Delhi, and application was submitted in one of the four official languages of NCT of Delhi, ie. Urdu in Persian script. 5. Because section 6(1) of the RTI Act is as follows:- A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to— (a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority; (b) the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her: and because the phrase - as the case may be - serves only to clarify that the application is to be made to a CPIO of a Central authority or to a SPIO of a State authority. 6. Because in all the CIC matters referred in the application pertaining to UT of Puducherry, where Tamil is an official language, the RTI requests and first appeals were all disposed of in the Tamil language by officers of the Union, and were not rejected. 7. Because the Constitutional provisions for languages used in India, and article 350 in particular, require the Union to receive and process representations in any of the languages of the Union, hence requiring the Union of India to make proper arrangements for the same and for which the Central Translation Bureaus have been established. 8. Because the Central RTI rules do not specify that only Hindi or English is to be used exclusively for Central Public authorities and Section 23 overrides all prior enactments and UoI has published the Act in so many Indian languages. for wider use. 9. Because Regulation 26 of CIC Management Regulations 2007, titled as -Language of the Commission- has been struck down as bad in law by Division bench of Delhi High Court and Honble Supreme Court refused to reinstate it in CICs SLP. The said regulation specified the language of the Commission to be either English or Hindi only. As I am a contesting party in the said matters I consider the CIC action to be a contempt of the Honble Court directions. PRAYERS 1. I be granted personal hearing in first appeal proceedings 2. That CIC makes immediate arrangements to conduct its business in any of the languages of India, which is a union of states. 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 6(1) of the RTI Act, A person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to— (a) the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority; (b) the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, In this case, the application for seeking information is made to Central Public Information Officer and the official language for the Public Authorities under Central Government being English or Hindi, 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
1632 CICOM/A/E/22/00186 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-07-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00489 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: This first appeal is filed on following grounds 1. Whereas it is correct that 3 emails were received, however, these only contained 4 PDF files and not 5. The missing PDF file is for CIC/MH&FW/A/2021/145176 2. The legal research, including draft orders, and other legal services documents generated by the Legal Consultants attached to the office of the concerned Central Information Commissioner are strangely missing from the files provided. These may be kindly be provided to me as I have specifically requested them for all 5 matters specified by me and these are part of the official records of CIC which are generated for payments made to the concerned empanelled advocates of the Commission as part of their assigned services under contracts. Furthermore, under the Bar Council of India Rules and numerous decisions of various High Courts, such Legal Consultants on annual contract are classified as employees of the Commission under the Advocates Act / Bar Council rules. PRAYER:- 1. All missing and incomplete documents and records which I requested may kindly be provided to me expeditiously. 2. If there is any dispute or objection raised for denial of the information I would request for a personal hearing in the first appeal proceedings along with advance copy of all objection or denials raised. 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. CPIO (DR to IC-HS) is directed to send the PDF for appeal no. CIC/MH&FW/A/2021/145176 to the appellant, if not already submitted, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, by 22.08.2022. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1633 CICOM/A/E/22/00187 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-07-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00502 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: This Appeal is filed on following grounds 1. Because whereas 11 points of information was specifically requested by me and the reply of the CPIO was .. Desired information is available at CIC website at link https://cic.gov.in ... which is an absolutely false and misleading statement because the information requested by me is not contained there. 2. Because the CPIO has made a categorical statement that all the requested information is somewhere on the CIC website, so the information evidently exists but is not traceable as I have thoroughly inspected the CIC website both before making this RTI request as well as again after receiving CPIOs reply. 3. Because It is inconceivable that a citizen would file an RTI request if the information is already proactively disseminated by the publish authority. PRAYER: 1. All the information I requested may be provided to me in form of hard copy and free of cost. 2. I am not interested in further inspection of any records as I have wasted enough time fruitlessly searching for the records CPIO indicated exist but which he is unable to provide the direct links to. Time is money and I shall demand compensation for wasting my time by such false and vague replies. 3. In case of any dispute or information denial, I request a personal hearing during the first appeal proceedings 4. Because the requested information is accessible only to officers of Joint Secretary Rank and above, so assistance u/s 5(4) of the Act may be taken from JS(Admin)/CIC presently Shri Rahul Rastogi as 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. 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 06.06.2022 which was delivered to the appellant on 08.06.2022. The First Appeal has been initiated by the appellant on 12.07.2022 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
1634 CICOM/A/P/22/00103 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-07-2022 Reference RTI No.CICOM/R/P/22/00260 प्रथम अपील का आधार अपीलकर्ता द्वारा CPIO, (RTI Cell) के पत्र दिनांक 21.06.2022 के जवाब से असंतुष्ट होकर सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा 19 (1) के तहत प्रथम अपील दाखिल की गई है। निर्णय संबंधित संचिका (प्रथम अपील आवेदन एवं आर.टी.आई. आवेदन) का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि आर. टी. आई. आवेदन संख्या CICOM/R/P/21/00260 में आवेदक ने सूचना के बारे में विवेचन माँगा है, ऐसे प्रश्नों का उत्तर देना केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी के दायित्व से परे है। उल्लेखनीय है कि, आवेदक पूछे हुए सवाल के लिए, सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 का अवलोकन 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
1635 CICOM/A/E/22/00185 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-07-2022 Reference RTI No.CICOM/R/E/22/00504 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 प्राप्त अधूरी सूचना से असंतुष्ट होकर प्रथम अपील दाखिल की गई है। निर्णय ऑनलाइन आर. टी. आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन किया गया। 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। किन्तु अपीलकर्ता ने अपने आर टी आई आवेदन में Dy. No.618689 तथा Dy. No.617748 का उल्लेख किया है। अतः के. ज. सू. अ. (DR to IC-UM) को निर्देशित किया जाता है कि मांगी गई सूचना का पुनः अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को स्पष्ट सूचना उपलब्ध करें। विशेषत: Dy. No.618689 तथा Dy. No.617748 के बारें में स्पष्टता लाएं। तद्नुसार अपील निस्‍तारित की जाती है। NA
1636 CICOM/A/E/22/00184 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-07-2022 Reference RTI No.CICOM/R/E/22/00563 प्रथम अपील का आधार अपीलकर्ता ने प्रथम अपील में विशेष रूप से कुछ तथ्य प्रस्तुत किए है। के. ज. सू. अ. (प्रशासन) द्वारा पत्र संख्या 2022/CIC/ADMN/RTI दिनांकित 22-06-2022 के माध्यम से सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 की धारा 8 (1) (j) की आड़ लेकर, गलत ढंग से, व्यक्तिगत सूचना घोषित करके, 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/22/00563 के बिन्दु संख्या 1 के प्रतिउत्तर में के. ज. सू. अ. (प्रशासन) द्वारा प्रेषित की गई सूचना, सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार नहीं है। अतः के. जन सूचना अधिकारी (प्रशासन) 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 28/07/2022 तक पूरी करें। तद्नुसार अपील निस्‍तारित की जाती है। NA
1637 CICOM/A/E/22/00183 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-07-2022 Reference RTI No.CICOM/R/E/22/00568 प्रथम अपील का आधार अपीलकर्ता द्वारा के. ज. सू. अ. (RTI Cell) के Online उत्तर दिनांक 08-07-2022 से असंतुष्ट होकर प्रथम अपील दाखिल की गई। निर्णय संबंधित संचिका (प्रथम अपील आवेदन एवं आर.टी.आई. आवेदन) का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि आर. टी. आई. आवेदन संख्या CICOM/R/E/22/00568 में आवेदक ने सूचना के बारे में विवेचन माँगा है ऐसे प्रश्नों का उत्तर देना जन सूचना अधिकारी के दायित्व से परे 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। आवेदक पूछे हुए सवाल के लिए, सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 का अवलोकन 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
1638 CICOM/A/E/22/00181 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-07-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00627 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: There are 3 Questions, so answers have not been provided and file closed without any information given. As per disability act, reasonable accommodation means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments, without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise of rights equally with others. 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
1639 CICOM/A/E/22/00182 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-07-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00558 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: Unsatisfied with Reply of CIC Already, it was, specified by sebi under RTI Apellant (Harbans Singh Sahni) Son Amandeep Singh Sahni was pursading the case, without any authority letter from his father Where transaction as per Account number Mentioned with refrence to it preatains to Amandeep Singh Sahni And Apellant was not presented dated 1st june 2020 where on the hearing it was confirmed by Amandeep Singh Sahni that he has received in saving since saving Account is in name, of Amandeep Singh Sahni Further information to correct the name was not provided which was written by mistake by 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. 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
1640 CICOM/A/P/22/00102 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-07-2022 Reference RTI No.CICOM/R/P/22/00259 प्रदान की गई सूचना केन्‍द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (DR to IC-AP) द्वारा पत्र सं. CICOM/R/P/22/00259 दिनांक 13-06-2022 के माध्यम से प्रदान की गई सूचनाएं इस प्रकार है:- “आपको यह सूचित किया जाता है कि आपके द्वारा भेजा written submission आयोग में डायरी सं. 123234 दिनांक 18-05-2022 प्राप्त हुआ और द्वितीय अपील सं.CIC/DOAHD/A/2020/140460 की Ebook में दिनांक 19-05-2022 को संलग्‍न कर दिया गया। Search Results की प्रतिलिपी संलग्‍न है।” प्रथम अपील का आधार अपीलकर्ता द्वारा CPIO (DR to IC-AP) के पत्र संख्या CICOM/R/P/00259 दिनांक 13-06-2022 के माध्यम से प्राप्त अधूरी और भ्रामक सूचनाओं से असंतुष्ट होकर, सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 की धारा 19 (1) के अंतर्गत 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 के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/22/00274 के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (DR to IC-AP) द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना, सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के अनुसार सही है। इसके अलावा अपीलकर्ता ने प्रथम अपील में प्राप्त सूचनाओं के अधूरा और भ्रामक होने के बारे में कोई भी उचित आधार प्रस्तुत नहीं किया 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। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (DR to IC-AP) 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