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
1751 CICOM/A/E/22/00120 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00155 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: A: RELIEF SOUGHT: (i) Referral of this RTI appeal to CPGRAMS appellate authority w.r.t DOPAT/E/2022/01077 dated 26/02/2022 against grievance DOPAT/E/2022/01077 dated 21/01/2022 disposed online on 25/02/2022 by CVO/CIC Sh Rahul Rastogi (ii) Transfer of this appeal to Railway, CVC, CBI, Delhi Police and Ministry of Civil aviation so that supply of information/disposal of RTI appeal/complaints can be done by their PIO, appellate authorities and other authorities duly taking cognizance of developments upto 20/04/2022 as recorded/submitted in supporting document B: Grounds for appeal: (i) Information w.r.t item no. Sl No. 1 of response of PIO request was already provided on 25/02/2022 in response to online grievance DOPAT/E/2022/01077 dated 21/01/2022 leading to CPGRAMS appeal DOPAT/E/2022/01077 dated 26/02/2022 under process with unknown authority. With inappropriate (now criminal) intentions the information was not provided in January 2021 after hearing held on 04/01/2022 related to which email was sent to CPIO on 14/01/2022 (ii) (ii) The information w.r.t Sl. No. 2 of response of PIO is misleading as the file no. CIC/MORLY/A/2020/663872 is correct for which initially incorrect decision was uploaded on CIC website 21/01/2022 and subsequently correct decision was uploaded on 23/02/2022 C. FACTS: Kindly note following RTI appeal (edited/updated text) disposed of the then FAA/CIC Ms Achla Sinha, now retired IRTS officer: Final Status of CICOM/A/2016/60053 Date of receipt 19/05/2016 i) RTI appeals CICOM/A/2015/60073 dated 26/07/2015, CICOM/A/2015/60080 dated 30/07/2015 and CICOM/A/2015/60152 dated 14/12/2015 were disposed online on 10/06/2016, 10/06/2016 and 20/07/2016 respectively ii) (ii) Referral of File No. CIC/SS/A/2014/900349 for full bench hearing of CIC for the original relief sought in the 2nd appeal case read with hand written relief submitted to IC Sh M A Khan Yusufi on 06/05/2014 and 15 points mentioned in RTI request CICOM/R/2015/50217 dated 06/05/2016 was not agreed iii) iii) Sh K A Talwar then then Dy Secretary/CIC issued latest email response dated 11/04/2022 leading to online grievance DDPRO/E/2022/00260 dated 14/04/2022 transferred on 19/04/2022 to Defence finance iv) iv) Matter is related to CVC Complaints 20659/2015 and 24694/2016. v) v) The then CPIO Sh K A Talwar stated, without providing any reasons, that RTI CICOM/R/2016/50217 dated 06/05/2016 seeking information u/s 7(1) of RTI Act concerning life and liberty of a person to be replied within 48 hours was forwarded on 09/05/2016. vi) vi) Email of IC Sh M A Khan Yusufi was taken from CIC official website. Hence its should be kept in operational condition. Incidentally, email was delivered and is part of electronic records of IC Sh M A Khan Yusufi who and his registry is being informed from April 2016 onwards. Status APPEAL DISPOSED OF as on 20/07/2016 Date of Action 20/07/2016 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
1752 CICOM/A/E/22/00117 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 19-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00258 DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 & 11 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. For Point no. 7 & 10 In the instant case, the CPIO (DR to CIC-YS) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide the information as per the available records and complying with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. In case information is denied, CPIO shall quote the appropriate section for such denial from the RTI Act, 2005. CPIO is directed to dispose of the RTI reply on Point No. 7 and 10 by 24/05/2022, free of cost. For Point no. 9 In the instant case, CPIO (DR to CIC-YS) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide the details of the action taken to the appellant as per records, if any, according to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 24/05/2022, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1753 CICOM/A/E/22/00118 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 19-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00240 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: (a) Regarding point(a), the order sheet is not what is directed as the order of High Court cited in the RTI application. The order sheet available on the CIC website is only for disposed-off cases – it merely gives the status of case when the decision is uploaded. However, the order sheet, as is available for any case, in any court was desired to be maintained as per the order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court. The daily order sheet, for example, is not available for the mega full bench hearing of 11 cases on 30/03/2022 on directions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court as on date as can be seen from below screenshot. In light of above the response of CPIO is deficient and CPIO needs to be directed to provide correct information. Please remember, this information is required to be maintained as per the directions of Hon’ble Delhi High Court. (b) Regarding point (b), the order sheet shows the order was uploaded on 23rd February, 2022. The order sheet shows that order sheet was uploaded on 10/02/2022, whilst the order sheet says that the order was uploaded on 10/02/2022 with the date of order being 23/02/2022 (it is date later than the date on which order sheet was uploaded). Also, the order shows that it was signed on the same date of hearing, i.e. 13/01/2022 – if that were so, why there is no entry in the order sheet and why was it uploaded on website 40 days later. Also, the screen shot below shows that the order was uploaded on 10/02/2022, whilst the order sheet says it was uploaded on 23/02/2022. In wake of above, it is clear that the PIO has not provided correct and desired information. You may kindly direct the CPIO to provide the correct information immediately. Also, action should be recommended against the CPIO for not provided in the correct information in 1st instance. You may kindly hold telephonic hearing keeping in view principle of natural justice. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point 1(a) In the instant case, the appellant has sought the following information in his RTI application- “(a) Daily order sheets of all the Information Commissioners from 1st January 2022 till the date of providing information. This has to be uploaded online as per the directions of the Hon Delhi High Court in the case of RK Jain.” However, in her First Appeal she has attached a screenshot of order sheet for Registry of IC-NG only for the date of 30.03.2022. It is observed that the record for order sheets as available on the CIC website is already in public domain and the link for the same was already given by the CPIO in his RTI reply. Moreover, 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. For Point 1(b) 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 appellant in her grounds of first appeal has requested the following - “Also, action should be recommended against the CPIO for not provided in the correct information in 1st instance. You may kindly hold telephonic hearing keeping in view principle of natural justice.” The RTI Act, 2005 does not empower FAA for any such action against the CPIO. Regarding the telephonic hearing, the opportunity of written submissions is also the reasonable/sufficient opportunity of hearing in the instant case. FAA found that the grounds of first appeal made by the appellant in her written submissions are sufficient for FAA to arrive at the decision in the instant case. Hence, FAA did not find any need for holding telephonic hearing. 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
1754 CICOM/A/E/22/00116 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 16-04-2022 Ref RTI No.-CICOM/R/E/22/00212 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: As per my RTI request no.WRLMD/R/2019/50346 dated 24/09/2019 regarding No. of Non Pooled /Earmark Railway Quarters in MMCT Division (STATION WISE for SS/SM/TI) & I did not get information appealed to FAA vide ref.no.WRLMD/A/2019/60076 dated 30/10/2019 , Decision taken by FAA dated 17/01/2020 & instructed PIO & Divisional Engineer (Track) Mumbai Central and PIO & Divisional Personal Officer Mumbai Central to provide information within 15 days from receipt of decision but not provided list of Non Pooled/Earmark Railway Quarters Station Wise for SS/SM/TI of MMCT Div. Appealed to CIC vide ref.no.CIC/WRAIL/A/2020/102122 dated 08/01/20 , hearing held on 16/12/2021 in which commission directed the respondent DPO & CPIO MMCT to furnish correct and complete information within 21 days from the date of receipt of hearing order. In spite of CIC order DPO/CPIO has not complied with CIC order on hearing & decision taken by IC Uday Mahurkar on 16/12/21 for which there was no response & DIARY NO. 608219 dt.08/02/22 was registered for NON COMPLIANCE and CONTEMPT of CIC HEARING for which it was replied as in process, I request to give me complete information of process : 1) I request to please give me file notings , Action taken report for request diary no.608219 dated 08/02/22 2) Has action been taken under section 20(1) or 20(2) of RTI ACT 2005 with the concerned as till date no response 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, CPIO DR to IC-UM is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide the information available, if any, regarding “follow up information and action taken report on Diary no.608219 dated 08/02/22 for non compliance and contempt of CIC hearing reference no.CIC/WRAIL/A/2020/102122-UM”, as sought by the RTI applicant by 05/05/2022, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1755 CICOM/A/E/22/00115 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 15-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00213 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: As per my RTI request no.WRLMD/R/2019/50194 dated 25/06/2019 regarding latest seniority list of SS/SM/TI in GP 4200 of operating department of MMCT Division I did not get information appealed to FAA vide ref.no.WRLMD/A/2019/60045 dated 22/07/2019 for providing information through email or floppy/diskette or through android application eKarmik BCT under memo/notification in the same way as provided for GP 4600, FAA decision was to provide within 15 days but not provided by CPIO.Appealed to CIC vide ref.no.CIC/WRAIL/A/2019/148107 dated 24/09/21in which commission directed to CPIO that it should be complied by the CPIO within 60 days from the date of receipt of hearing order. In spite of CIC order CPIO has not complied with CIC order on hearing & decision taken by IC Dr.Amita Pandit on 24/09/21 for which DIARY NO. 605026 dt.24/01/22 was registered for NON COMPLIANCE and CONTEMPT of CIC HEARING 1) I request to please give me file notings , Action taken report for request diary no.605026 dated 24/01/22 2) Has action been taken under section 20(1) or 20(2) of RTI ACT 2005 with the concerned as till date no response 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, CPIO DR to IC-UM is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide the information available, if any, regarding “follow up information and action taken report on Diary no.605026 dated 24/01/22 for non compliance and contempt of CIC hearing reference no.CIC/WRAIL/A/2019/148107 on dated 24/09/2021”, as sought by the RTI applicant by 05/05/2022, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1756 CICOM/A/E/22/00114 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 13-04-2022 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/22/00216 के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारियों द्वारा प्रेषित की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों एवं मांगी गई सूचना के अनुसार ही है। आवेदक द्वारा मांगी गई सूचना के बारे में सूचना का अधिकार 2005 के धारा 20 (2) में उपलब्ध है। अतः आवेदक इस धारा का अवलोकन कर सकता है। अतः 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
1757 CICOM/A/E/22/00113 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00143 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: Dear Sir, The decision and other required documents are public documents and part of the record so the same can be supplied under the RTI act, 2005. Public documents (decision and documents herein ) cannot be denied under RTI. Please provide me an opportunity to hear before disposing of my first appeal. I will provide you with supportive documents in this regard. Thanks & regards 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 at his end i.e. reply dated 07.03.2022. Appellant has not specified anything which could be taken as sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. So, this appeal cannot be taken into consideration as the time limit, as specified in the RTI Act, 2005, for submission of first appeal has already been exceeded. The appeal is rejected as per Sub-Section (1) of Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1758 CICOM/A/E/22/00112 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00220 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: Grounds of Appeal for point 1b 1. RTI application has not been sent to CPIO who keeps the record of person using commission provided mobile phone for facilitating the Audio-Hearing. Grounds of Appeal for Point 2 1 CPIO Shri V P SINGH has attached Commission’s complaint policy applicable to Information Commissioners/ Chief Information Commissioners. 2 The Complaint (Copy Attached) was against Dy Registrars and other staff of the Central Information Commission and not against any Information Commissioner/ Chief Information Commissioner. 3 CPIO Shri V P SINGH is misleading by attaching Commission’s complaint policy applicable to Information Commissioners/ Chief Information Commissioners. 4 CPIO Shri V P SINGH has not attached any information provided by the offices of Chief Information Commissioner /Secretary to whom the complaint was addressed. Grounds of Appeal for Point 3c 1. Incomplete/misleading information. Evidence of informing change not provided. Grounds of Appeal for Point 3f 1. CPIO has given misleading response by involving Commission. 2. Commission takes decision based on documents in e-book before it during hearing. 3. If CPIO is unable to identify which documents to provide he should have provided copy of e-book 1 st Appellate Authority (under RTI Act) is requested to direct CPIOs to provide information. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point 1b and 3c 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. For Point 2 In the instant case, the CPIO Admin Section is directed to revisit the RTI application and appropriately reply about the enquiry report, if any, along with the action taken, if any. In case, CPIO does not hold any such information in this regard, CPIO must quote the appropriate section (reference- Clause 8 of Section 7) under the RTI Act, 2005 for his inability of providing the information to the appellant by 12/05/2022, free of cost. For Point 3f In the instant case, the CPIO DR to IC-HS is directed to revisit the RTI application and appropriately reply about the records, if any. In case, CPIO does not hold any such information in this regard, CPIO must quote the appropriate section (reference- Clause 8 of Section 7) under the RTI Act, 2005 for his inability of providing the information to the appellant by 12/05/2022, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1759 CICOM/A/E/22/00111 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 10-04-2022 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/22/00209 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 बिंदु सं 2 और 3 में 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। NA
1760 CICOM/A/E/22/00109 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 10-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00250 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: “The PIO has not provided proper and sharp answers of question number 2 , 8 , 10 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 20 and 21 and the PIO has not provided clear answer and has tried to evade providing answer by providing URL (Link) for the Question number 3 , 5 , 7 , 11 , 12 , 17 and 18. The reply of RTI Query was provided in a document on which the contents printed are poorly visible and cannot be read properly by the RTI applicant. The FAA is requested to provide to the point and sharp answer of the mentioned questions and to provide reply either through text or in a document in which printing is done properly and the document is scanned properly for providing reply to the RTI applicant.” DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by CPIOs of CIC have been perused. For Points 1 to 7 and 9 to 21 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 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. For Point 8 In the instant case, CPIO (Admin Section) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide the information sought by the appellant (information need not be sorted and collated i.e. information as available in the records), as per Section of 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. The information may be provided by 11/05/2022, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA