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
1741 CICOM/A/P/22/00046 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 22-04-2022 Ref RTI No. CICOM/R/P/22/00114 प्रथम अपील का आधार अपीलकर्ता ने दिनांक 03/03/2022 को जन सूचना अधिकारी से 5 बिंदुओं पर सूचना मांगते हुए आवेदन किया था। बिंदु संख्या 1 व 2 में सूचना उपलब्ध नहीं होने की बात की है। बिंदु संख्या 1 में जब कोई ऐसा प्रावधान नहीं है तो फिर आयोग क्यों नहीं अपीलकर्ता से विभाग के द्वारा दिया गया स्पष्टीकरण साझा करता है यानि कि आयोग की अपनी इच्छा पर निर्भर करता है। बिंदु संख्या 2 में आयोग के आदेश के उपरांत भी विभाग के द्वारा जानकारी नहीं दी जाती तो आयोग कुछ नहीं कर सकता ऐसे कैसे 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/22/00114 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। तद्नुसार अपील निस्‍तारित की जाती है। NA
1742 CICOM/A/P/22/00048 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 22-04-2022 आर.टी.आई. आवेदन, प्रदान कि गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी. आई. आवेदन सं CICOM/R/P/22/00100 के प्रतिउत्तर प्रदान की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार ही है। परन्तु अपीलकर्ता ने अपनी प्रथम अपील में लिखा है कि दिल्ली नगर निगम लाजपत नगर के अंतर्गत श्री मान लोक सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा आज तक कोई सूचि नहीं दी गई। परंतु केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा सूचना प्रदान की जा चुकी है। अतः अपीलकर्ता को यह सूचित किया जाता है कि दिल्ली नगर निगम लाजपत नगर से मांगी गई सूचना, केंद्रीय सूचना आयोग के कार्यक्षेत्र से बाहर है। 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
1743 CICOM/A/P/22/00049 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 22-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00110 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating: “Your address has been mentioned in your office letter head as “Baba Gangnath Marg” which seems to be not correct. I send herewith a photocopy of letter No.CICOM/R/P/21/00229/ICUM dated 11th August, 2021 of Shri R. K. Rao, Deputy Registrar, Central Information Commission, New Delhi – 110067 wherein it has been intimated that as per CPWD direction Boar, Street Name is written “Baba Gang Nath Marg” (Gang and Nath are separate words) and as such, you are requested to kindly mention your Street name as “Baba Gang Nath Marg” in your communication in future and this may please be confirmed. Moreover, in Hindi also, it has been mentioned as “Babagangnath Marg” in your office letter head and as such, you are requested to kindly mention your Street Name in Hindi as “Baba Gang Nath Marg” and this also may please be confirmed. Central Information Commission have been mentioned in Hindi as “CentralInformationCommission” as a single word and this should be mentioned separately as “Central Information Commission”.” DECISION OF 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 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 content of the RTI application and the grounds of appeal mentioned by the appellant do not coincide. 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
1744 CICOM/A/P/22/00051 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 22-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00033 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating: “Provide me concluding action of disposal of my letter dated 05-10-2021 as I am sure it must be in physical possession with O/o CIC and must have been filed in Master file/case file etc. with CC to Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, ND.” “I would like to mention when my appeal file has already been closed (which I object to as copy of my letter dated 02/06/15 desired has not been provided by C.G.H.S. till date rather CGHS has in writing admitted that my said letter dtd 02-06-2015 not traceable, how can CIC claim that Xerox copy has been provided & non-compliance complaint by me does not arise.)” It is requested: a) CPIO may please be directed to provide me concluding action of disposal of my letter dtd 05-10-2021 b) As OP(CGHS) has not found my letter dtd 2-6-2015 how can CIC office claim that it has been provided to me and reject my claim of non-compliance. c) As such please direct CPIO that case cannot be treated as closed. d) If not providing copy of my letter dt 2-6-2015 by OP(CGHS) attracts any action/penalty, it is requested concerned authorities may kindly be advised to initiate action against then under intimation to me. e) CPIO may kindly be directed once again to provide me copy of my letter dtd 2-6-2015 or accept their inability and withdraw “case closed” remarks and treat my ‘Non-compliance’ compliant as valid and take N/A. 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 18.02.2022 which was delivered to the appellant on 23.02.2022. The First Appeal has been initiated by the appellant on 22.03.2022 but from tracking the first appeal using consignment no. mentioned on the envelope, it is observed that the first appeal was posted on 08.04.2022, 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
1745 CICOM/A/P/22/00052 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 22-04-2022 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/22/00107 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। 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
1746 CICOM/A/P/22/00053 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 22-04-2022 प्रस्तुत मामले में, सम्बंधित दस्तावेजों का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा 23.02.2022 को सूचना प्रेषित की गई, जबकि अपीलकर्ता द्वारा दिनांक 31.03.2022 को प्रथम अपील दाखिल की गई है, परंतु लिफाफे पर लगी डाक विभाग की पर्ची से ज्ञात होता है कि अपीलकर्ता द्वारा दिनांक 11.04.2022 को प्रथम अपील प्रेषित की गई है, जो कि सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 में प्रथम अपील दाखिल करने हेतु निर्धारित अवधि 30 से ज्यादा है। अपीलकर्ता द्वारा विलंब से प्रथम अपील दाखिल करने का कोई ठोस कारण का उल्लेख नहीं किया गया है। अतः बिना किसी ठोस कारण के प्रथम अपील विलंब से दाखिल करने के आधार पर यह प्रथम अपील ख़ारिज की जाती है। NA
1747 CICOM/A/P/22/00047 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 22-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00099 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating: 1. I submit to state that from the Paper News, it is learnt that the Central Information Commissioner has asked the Central Government to release all the orders regarding the reduction of imprisonment period of the lifetime prisoners, by the Government after the period of year 2000. 2. Further, it is learnt that the Central Information Commissioner has said that the public have rights to know the reason for the reduction in the imprisonment period of the lifetime prisoners. And so, the CPIO cannot say – refuse to provide the information to the RTI applicant, saying the matter is in the court. 3. Thus I have explained the details as above and request the First Appellate Authority to provide me a copy of the Central Information Commissioner’s order, at an early date. Note: Sir, I have no order no. for the above matter. Please help me. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and CPIO’s reply have been perused. The Appellant himself is not clear about the particulars of the information sought by him. In fact, all the orders on second appeals are put in the public domain after disposal of the second appeal by CIC. 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
1748 CICOM/A/E/22/00123 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 22-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00224 DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, 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 17.03.2022. The First Appeal has been initiated by the appellant on 22.04.2022, 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 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
1749 CICOM/A/E/22/00122 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 22-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/22/00036 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: Sir I am sought an complete information according point wise as per request with Diary no 621437 (central information commission) but cpio not provided andd also hindi language But 2nd appeal is pending adjudication before DR To Y k sinha for action taken. In matters of Liberty of life any person RTI act 2005 with Rules as the same is not in consonance with RTI act. And I would like to say you that where are stating by Deputy register admin jharkhand High court( copy attached) for hearing appeal no CIC/CICOM/A/2022/618319 earliest./soon Enclosed- an written request and copy of order jharkhand High court letter no 66 ,dt 1.4.022 for adjournment in commission or subordinate thereto. Hence I shall be everpray for this kindness of act. 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 appellant had filed the RTI application with RTI No. MOLAW/R/E/22/00267 in Ministry of Law & Justice on 04.04.2022 and it was transferred to Central Information Commission with RTI No. CICOM/R/T/22/00036 on 05.04.2022. In the instant case, the appellant has also sought for the bench details for his second appeal, which CPIO has not replied. Appellant may note that the second appeal is registered in the Registry of CIC-YS for the hearing. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1750 CICOM/A/E/22/00119 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00292 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: Sir I am sought an information by registration no CICOM R/T/22/00036 and regarding compliace vide diary no 621437 dated 13 april 022 before central information commission . Enclosed an request alongwith evidence 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. In the instant case, the appellant has also sought for the bench details for his second appeal, which CPIO has not replied. Appellant may note that the second appeal is registered in the Registry of CIC-YS for the hearing. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA