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
1701 CICOM/A/P/22/00072 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-05-2022 Reference RTI No CICOM/R/P/22/00169 प्रथम अपील का आधार अपीलकर्ता द्वारा सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा 19 (1) के तहत सम्पूर्ण दस्तावेज उपलब्ध करवाने हेतु प्रथम अपील दायर 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/21/00072 के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी DR-IC (UM) द्वारा माननीय उच्च न्यायलय के आदेश का हवाला देकर RTI आवेदनकर्ता को पूर्ण एवं स्पष्ट सूचना प्रदान करने से इंकार कर दिया गया है और उत्तर अंग्रेजी भाषा में दिया गया है। माननीय उच्च न्यायलय का उक्त आदेश प्रस्तुत RTI आवेदन के मामले में पूर्णतया या आंशिक रूप से लागू होता है या नहीं, इसकी व्याख्या करना केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी के कार्यक्षेत्र के दायरे में नहीं आता है। इसलिए केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी, DR-IC (UM) को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि उक्त आर. टी. आई. आवेदन के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का पुनः अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के अनुसार हिंदी भाषा में पूर्ण एवं स्पष्ट सूचना प्रदान करें। यह कार्यवाही दिनांक 10/06/2022 तक पूरी करें। तद्नुसार अपील निस्‍तारित की जाती है। NA
1702 CICOM/A/P/22/00073 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-05-2022 REFERENCE RTI No. CICOM/R/P/22/00138 प्रथम अपील का आधार अपीलकर्ता द्वारा CPIO, IC (SP) के पत्र संख्या CICOM/R/P/00138 दिनांक 18/04/2022 के जवाब से असतुष्ट होकर सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 की धारा 19 (1) के अंतर्गत प्रथम अपील दायर की गई है। निर्णय संबंधित संचिका (प्रथम अपील आवेदन एवं आर.टी.आई. आवेदन) का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता द्वारा सूचना की आड़ में, काल्पनिक स्तिथियों का निर्माण करके प्रश्न पूछे गए है और आयोग की कार्य प्रणाली के अनुसार निर्धारित सुनवाई की प्रक्रिया पर सवाल उठाये गए है। प्रक्रिया से सम्बंधित प्रश्नों के उत्तर देना केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी के कर्तव्य के दायरे से बाहर है। आर. टी. आई. आवेदन संख्या CICOM/R/P/21/00138 के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी, IC (SP) द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों एवं मांगी गई सूचना के अनुसार सही है। उल्लेखनीय है कि सूचना अधिकार का 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। तद्नुसार अपील निस्‍तारित की जाती है। NA
1703 CICOM/A/E/22/00146 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 19-05-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00298 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that no response within the time limit. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. The appellant in the first appeal has specified the following ground- “no response within the time limit.” In the instant case, the CPIO has replied to the RTI application within the prescribed time limit as per the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1704 CICOM/A/P/22/00070 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 19-05-2022 आपके द्वारा प्राप्त हुआ पत्र दिनांक 06.05.2022 जो कि प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी को 20.05.2022 को प्राप्त हुआ है। जिसमे आपने अपनी आर.टी.आई संख्या CICOM/R/P/21/00668 का उल्लेख किया जिसमे प्रथम अपील का निर्णय दिया जा चुका है। अतः यह अपील निष्तारित की जाती है। NA
1705 CICOM/A/E/22/00145 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 18-05-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00396 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: Sir Kindly provide complete information against submitted application dt 12 april 022 or information taken action received dak by compliance cell cic new delhi. Enclosed- petition alongwith diary no DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, 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 collect 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
1706 CICOM/A/P/22/00068 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 17-05-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00105 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating: 1. Please refer to CIC letter No. CICOM/R/P/22/0015 dated 28.03.2022. As regards the Decision on the hearing held on 03.05.2021 and the Decision given, needs to re-look because the CPI(O), Indian Army need to reconsidered as the CPIO, in absence of Petitioner had concealed Facts and thus obtained the decision by Fraud/misrepresentation. 2. The CIC, in their reply, replied the points as hereunder : (a) Point No.1- “No information sought” is totally wrong and incorrect. (b) Point No.2- “No information sought” is totally wrong and incorrect. (c) Point No.3 – Information sought is enclosed. The retention schedule does not indicate the confidential records can be destroyed when the matter is subjudice. The Retention Schedule submitted does not state that the confidential records (legal) are to be held permanently, and ACRs can be destroyed after the case i over and that also after 5 years of the finalization of court cases. In the instant case the ACRs were destroyed when the case was under ACTIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI. This fact had been admitted by the Respondents (UOI) in the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and before Armed Forces Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. 3. A careful study of my application to CIC dated 30.05.2019 shall sustain my contentions of FRAUD and hence need consideration. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and CPIO’s reply 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 28.03.2022 which was delivered to the appellant on 29.03.2022. The First Appeal has been mentioned to be initiated by the appellant on 04.04.2022, as per date available in the First Appeal. However, on tracking the first appeal using the consignment no. mentioned on the envelope, it is observed that the first appeal was posted on 04.05.2022, which is well beyond 30 days from the date of receipt of reply of the CPIO. 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
1707 CICOM/A/E/22/00142 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 17-05-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00378 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: Sir I am also Appeallant bearing case no cic/ CISFO/a/2020/689001. I would like like to sat you that cpio has been provided yet from personal record with central information commission new Delhi passed decision in said appeal. Hence I am requested you that you pleased issued to direction to CPIO if your office for required information under RTI act 2005. I shall be very grateful to you for this kindness of act. Enclosed- request alongwith appeal petition 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 has denied the information by quoting that the information sought was of that of third party information. However, CPIO has specified denial clause as 8(e). The ground for the denial of information by CPIO is not clear. Accordingly, CPIO is directed to revisit the RTI application and the information available in his custody. CPIO is expected to either provide the information or else specify clearly the legitimate denial clause along with the speaking order for any such denial. This activity may be completed by 24.06.2022. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1708 CICOM/A/P/22/00069 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 17-05-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/21/00482 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating that the English version of his application dated 04-03-2022 and 08-03-2022 is submitted for kind perusal and requests the FAA to direct the concerned authority to provide the sought information. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and CPIO’s reply 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 03.11.2021. The First Appeal has been initiated by the appellant on 04.03.2022 (as mentioned on the First Appeal submitted by the appellant on the first instance), which was well beyond 30 days from date of receipt of reply of the CPIO. 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
1709 CICOM/A/E/22/00143 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 17-05-2022 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/P/22/00188 में आवेदक सलाह की मांग कर रहा है, न कि सूचना । 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। प्रथम अपील में उल्लेखित अन्य मदें जो कि RTI आवेदन का हिस्सा नहीं है, तथा उस पर प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी द्वारा कोई कार्यवाही अपेक्षित नहीं है। NA
1710 CICOM/A/E/22/00144 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 17-05-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00359 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: First Appeal dt 17.05.2022 before the Appellate Authority, CIC Brief Facts: When asked for "copy of notifications/orders that state the procedure of further appeal, and hearing process in the case of the deceased applicant, for continuing the process, as legal heir certificate from states are to be issued from competent courts which involves a lot of time and huge expenditure. When any citizen can seek such information, reasons for insisting on legal heir certificates as the entire process has to be repeated after 3 months when getting legal heir certificates in those states is not an easy procedure burdening all stakeholders additional work and expenditure", CPIO CIC has stated the following Reply from CPIO: Desired information is not available in CIC. Authority is also not clear so it cannot be transferred under section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 Grounds of Appeal When there is no laid down norm, the reasons for rejecting Appeals and Hearings from legal representatives on self-attestation of such relationship and reasons for insisting legal heir certificate DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, 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 collect information that is not a part of the record. In addition to this, appellant in the first appeal has specified the following grounds- “Grounds of Appeal When there is no laid down norm, the reasons for rejecting Appeals and Hearings from legal representatives on self-attestation of such relationship and reasons for insisting legal heir certificate” It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant has sought reasons behind rejection of certain appeals and hearings, which are not even specified. The CPIO is not supposed to provide the reasons behind the decision making, if it is not part of the information on record. Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. In fact, the copy of the RTI Act, 2005, being in the public domain, the appellant may refer the same. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA