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
1731 CICOM/A/P/22/00059 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00054 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant in the first appeal has prayed: “Hence prays that the claim bills towards PPF Commission from The Post Master Keonjhargarh H.P.O. may kindly be settled at your very intervention for which I the applicant as if duly bound shall every pray. “ 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 04.03.2022 which was delivered to the appellant on 14.03.2022. The First Appeal has been initiated by the appellant on 13.04.2022 but from tracking the first appeal using consignment no. mentioned on the envelope, it is observed that the first appeal was posted on 18.04.2022, 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
1732 CICOM/A/P/22/00060 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00053 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating: “I made my RTI application Ref. No. J5/1074/2022 dt. 21/01/2022 before CPIO. CPIO has replied vide his letter NO. CICOM/R/P/22/00053 Dt. 21/02/2022. Under (2), I wanted to know status of my appeal. Though CPIO has replied but my expectation was to know at present Sr. Citizen’s appeals of which month and year are being heard. I would request you to provide me this 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 21.02.2022. The First Appeal has been initiated by the appellant on 11.04.2022 i.e. after 49 days of CPIO’s reply, 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 rejected as per RTI Act, 2005. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1733 CICOM/A/P/22/00058 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00044 DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and CPIO’s reply have been perused. As per DoPT guidelines, it is not mandatory that FAA may conduct a physical hearing. The opportunity of written submission provided to the appellant is 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. 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 18.02.2022. The First Appeal has been initiated by the appellant on 21.04.2022, i.e. after 62 days of CPIO’s reply, 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 is not taken into consideration as the time limit for submission of first appeal has already exceeded. The appeal is not admissible as per Subsection (1) of Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1734 CICOM/A/P/22/00057 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00159 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating: 1. The issue raised have some important historical evidence. It was found that in maximum cases final appeal is rejected as some documents were not sent to CIC. By mentioning website, CIC has tried to avoid direct information. Website does not mention total cases referred to CIC & total cases rejected out of total cases forwarded- only this information is desired. 2. The rejection of appeal is done by you by returning all papers submitted For example, we submit following documents. i) Copy of original RTI. ii) Copy of reply on RTI. iii) Copy of Appeal. iv) Copy of reply by Appellate Authority. Now instead of returning all papers, in case only one document is not clear, you can ask for copy of same but you should not return all documents in 90% cases, it is likely papers are not resubmitted. Since, no direct information is provided, one has to appeal but can’t CIC not correspond with party with whom information is sought. Kindly information sought may be provided to the point. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and CPIO’s reply 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
1735 CICOM/A/P/22/00055 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-04-2022 REF RTI No.CICOM/R/P/22/00124 प्रथम अपील का आधार अपीलकर्ता द्वारा केन्‍द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी/ DR-IC (NG) के पत्र के माध्‍यम से दिनांक 07.04.2022 से प्राप्त सूचनाओं से असंतुष्ट हो कर प्रथम अपील दायर की गई हैl निर्णय बिंदु संख्या 1 एवं 2 हेतु- 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/22/00124 के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रेषित की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों एवं मांगी गई सूचना के अनुसार ही 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। बिंदु संख्या 3 हेतु- जन सूचना अधिकारी ने अपने जवाब में शीघ्र सुनवाई हेतु प्रावधान का जिक्र किया हैl किन्तु आवेदक ने ऐसे प्रावधानों की सत्यापित कॉपी मांगी थीl अतः जन सूचना अधिकारी को निर्देशित किया जाता है कि अपने रिकॉर्ड से सम्बंधित दस्तावेज की कॉपी आवेदक को 27/05/2022 तक निशुल्क उपलब्ध करायेंl तद्नुसार अपील निस्‍तारित की जाती है। NA
1736 CICOM/A/E/22/00127 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00312 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: THE INFORMATION WHICH I REQUESTED PERTAINS TO CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION IS NOT GIVEN TO ME. THE CASE IS BETWEEN CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF POST MADURAI I HAVE ENCLOSED HEREWITH THE DECISION OF CIC AS ATTACHMENT KINDLY PROVIDE ME THE COMPENSATION AS THE MATTER IS PENDING FOR MORE THAN 10 YEARS 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
1737 CICOM/A/P/22/00054 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-04-2022 आर. टी. आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन CICOM/R/P/22/00068 के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रेषित की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों एवं मांगी गई सूचना के अनुसार ही है। परन्तु आपने अपनी प्रथम अपील में यह कहा है कि मुझे 45 दिन की अवधि के अंतर्गत सूचना नहीं दी गई है। जबकि केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी ने 30 दिन के भीतर ही सूचना प्रदान कर दी थी । अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रदान कि गई सूचना तथ्यात्मक है और इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप कि कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है I NA
1738 CICOM/A/E/22/00126 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00341/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that the CPIO didn’t provide the reply to the RTI application. 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 the instant case, the appellant has filed the RTI application CICOM/R/E/22/00341/1 dated 17/04/2022 and the CPIO M&R Section has replied to the appellant on 25/04/2022 i.e. within the prescribed time as per the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant has filed the first appeal before receiving the CPIO’s reply. 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
1739 CICOM/A/E/22/00125 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-04-2022 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/22/00338 के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा बिंदु संख्या 1 में प्रेषित की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों एवं मांगी गई सूचना के अनुसार ही है। परन्तु, केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी ने आर.टी.आई. आवेदन के बिंदु संख्या 2 के प्रतिउत्तर का उल्लेख नहीं किया है अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी को यह निर्देश दिए जाता है कि वह अपीलकर्ता को 19.05.2022 तक आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/21/00338 के बिंदु सं. 2 के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पूर्ण एवं स्पष्ट सूचना (फ्री ऑफ़ कॉस्ट) प्रेषित की जाये। NA
1740 CICOM/A/E/22/00124 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00262 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: RTI Appeal against CICOM/R/E/22/00262 Filling Date 25.03.2022 DESIRED INFORMATION IN RTI 1. Information may kindly be considered to be disposed via email or via eoffice. 2. Whether the compliance of Rajya Sabha Circular Dated 23.02.2021 by the Office of Central Information Commission(copy enclosed) is complied with- Yes/No 3. total expenditure(in amount) Cost on Stationary purchased between 23.02.2021 - 25.03.2022 or till the disposal of the RTI by this office. 4. Total Expenditure on Speed Post between 23.03.2021 - 25.03.2022 CPIO DISPOSED INFORMATION DATED 22.04.2022 not a satisfactory reply. GROUND FOR APPEAL- 1. MIsinterpreted and Misleading information . 2. Circular by Rajya Sabha is issued in RTI Act 2005. wherein RTI official portal has been setup for filling of RTI applications but information is still disposed as hard copies which incurs printing cost and are not at all environmental friendly failing digital system wherein 47 Lakh Rs is the cost only for disposal by speed post which is miserably failing digital mode system 3. Many offices has setup eoffice at center and statr level, Ministry of Enviornment Forest and Climate Change is one such office. 4. Information is disposed in form of grievance redressal and not as per information sought. 5. If the reply is internal in Rajya Sabha Office then why other offices are following eoffice and have setup office if CIC is also part of RTI act 2005, the reply doesnt justify the information sought in right. 6.What is sought in RTI is information but what is disposed in RTI is a reply in form of grievance in Para 2. 7. Department has not maintained any budget expenditure is unsatisfactory reply. 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. The grounds of first appeal mentioned by the appellant do not coincide with the contents of 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