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
1761 CICOM/A/E/22/00110 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/22/00209/2 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। 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
1762 CICOM/A/P/22/00040 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-04-2022 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/22/00146 के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के अनुसार आर.टी.आई. आवेदन जिस कार्यालय से संबंधित था उसे अग्रसारित किया गया है। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा किया गया काम तथ्यात्मक है, और इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप कि कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है I NA
1763 CICOM/A/P/22/00045 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00095 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating that he has not received the required information as per his RTI application dated 16/02/2022 within the statutory period and prays for the same. 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 collect information that is not a part of the record. In the instant case, CPIO IC(SP) has provided information on 24/03/2022 i.e. within the prescribed time as per RTI Act, 2005 and the appellant has made First Appeal before receiving the reply of CPIO i.e. first appeal dated 23/03/2022. 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
1764 CICOM/A/P/22/00041 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00184 DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and CPIO’s reply have been perused. The point-wise disposal is as follows:- On page no. 2 of the First Appeal the appellant has attached a complaint regarding appointing a new/link FAA in CIC. FAA is not the appropriate platform for representing this issue. The appellant is advised to send it directly to the appropriate forum. No action is taken on this paper as it is attached with the First Appeal. The information for Point No. 1 in the RTI application was provided by CPIO Admin Section and for Point No. 2 to 6 by PA to FAA, as per availability of the records. Point No.1 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 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. Point No. 2 ,4 & 6 The First Appeals received online on the RTI MIS portal are received and recorded electronically on RTI MIS portal and the First Appeals which are received offline are also recorded/saved online by registering it on the RTI MIS portal. Central Information Commission is not the custodian of the RTI MIS portal. The specific duration of data sought by the Appellant is not readily available on record and to obtain such data for the specific duration, the CPIO has to collate and sort the information which is not covered in the definition of ‘information’ under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. In view of the larger public interest, the data of disposal of first appeals by CIC is published in the Annual Report of the CIC, which is readily available on the website https://cic.gov.in/reports/37. 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, sort 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. Point No. 3 & 5 In the Point No. 3 the information sought by the appellant is in the form of True or False. 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 answer the questions like true or false. In addition to this, no such record on issue of hearing notices is being maintained by the CPIO. 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 point-wise analysis of the grounds of first appeal while arriving at the decision is as follows- For Point A & B- The appellant has prayed for true, correct, complete and accurate information for Point No. 1 to 6, free of cost, as mentioned above in the decision the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. For Point C & D- The appellant has prayed for issuing of Circular/Order/OM directing all CPIOs of CIC to maintain all its records which are beyond the mandate of FAA as per the RTI Act, 2005. Also the appellant has not mentioned anything regarding this in his RTI application. For Point E - The appellant has prayed for issuing of Circular/Order/OM directing all CPIOs of CIC mentioning the official mobile number or contact number and E. Mail ID in replies/decisions in future correspondence. The content of the RTI application and grounds of appeal by the appellant does not coincide and the appellant has not mentioned anything regarding this in his RTI application. In fact, the contact numbers and E mail Ids are available on the CIC website- https://cic.gov.in/cic-official-directory. For Point F - The appellant has prayed for token compensation of Rs. 200/- for the mental pain, agony, unnecessary, financially loss and determent suffered, which is beyond the mandate of FAA as per the RTI Act, 2005. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1765 CICOM/A/P/22/00043 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00079 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating: Sir as per my said RTI application Under clause 3(a) I have requested that has the PIO submitted any reply w.r.to my appeal No:- CIC/DDATY/A/2020/113107, heard & decided on 30-09-2021,If yes, under clause 3(b) I have requested to provide me the Certified copy of the said submitted reply w r to my above said Appeal. Sir what the worthy CPIO has replied is totally irrelevant and off the mark. Neither it is a reply to my said RTI application nor it reflects any date and matter of my any non compliance complaint. Sir it is highly regrettable that I have received such a reply from the esteemed office of the CIC. 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 collect information that is not a part of the record. In the instant case, CPIO IC-HS has already provided copy of letter received from PIO/AD/GH/DDA dated 28.1.2022. 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
1766 CICOM/A/P/22/00044 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00128 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating: 1. What will be the action now by the G.O. India on the concerned officer in CVC who signed and issued the circular no. 03/03/2017 dated 10.2.17 in a case file No. CVC/RTI? Misc/16/006 to CVOs in all the Ministries/ Depts of G.O. India as this gave wrong signals in view of the orders issued by the DoPT: G.O. India vide its letter no. F.No. 4/4/2021/IRII dated 22-07-21. 2. Based on the said circular dated 10.3.17 of CVC the NIRDPR officials of CPIOs and AAs have taken advantage in connivance and not at al supplied the records and information, this is nothing but misuse of the offices by the all the CPIOs and AAs of NIRDPR. A copy of their version is enclosed herewith at p.no. 13/17 for your kind information and suggesting further actions on these officers. 3. With the issue of above orders by the DoPT: G.O. India vide their office letter no. 4/4/2021/IRA..... dated 22-7-21 the CPIO/AAs in NIRDPR may please be directed to provide me the required records and information vide my 15 to 20 of RTI application by revisiting the subject matter which is in providing for the last 10 to 12 years. 4. With the above circular dated 10.3.17 they (CPIOs/AAs of NIRDPR) have influenced the CIC in their Two no. of decisions taken. In this connection the amendments have to be under taken by the CIC to their decisions already taken. 4(9) Please help me to avail effications remedy available in RTI Act as to how to go about it: 5. There is a lot of sufferances for me because of the said circular of CVC issued financially and psychology for the last 10 to 12 years. Please order NIRDPR and other G.O. India organizations involved for a payment of penalty time under the provisions of Section 20 of the RTI Act 2005. 6. Any other special financial package from all their concerned organizations of G.O.India are i) NIRDPR/CPIOs & FAA ii) Min. of R.D(Deptt of RD) iii) Central Vigilance Commission iv) Central Information Commission v) DoPT: G.O. India as all these organizations have been involved either or indirectly in making me to suffer for the last several years. 7. To issue strict orders to implement the orders issued by the National Commission for SCs, this constitutional organisation vide its letter no. B16/RD-1/2015/SSW-I dated 29-9-16(copy enclosed) without any further loss of time. Your kind orders are solicited on all the subject mattes raised in this first appeal. 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. In the instant case, the abovementioned grounds of appeal mentioned by the appellant belong to public authorities which are beyond the purview of this FAA and also the grounds mentioned do not coincide with the information sought under the subject 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
1767 CICOM/A/P/22/00042 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-04-2022 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/22/00093 के प्रतिउत्तर प्रदान की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 के प्रावधानों 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
1768 CICOM/A/E/22/00108 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00253 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: Vide my application no. CICOM/R/E/22/00253 dt 21.03.2022, I had sought CLEAR & SPECIFIC information on three points from the o/o Central Information Commission and NOT from the o/o IC (NG) who had disposed of my 2nd appeal no. CIC/DOFSR/A/2019/654982 dt. 16.06.2019 vide orders dt 04.02.2022. Somehow, my application had been forwarded to the CPIO cum DR attached in the o/o IC (NG). CPIO instead of providing point wise specific information as sought (wherein NO CLARIFICATION had been sought), has REFUSED to provide the same on the WRONG pretext that the sought information is of clarificatory nature. Thus, the reply is in clear violation of the provisions of RTI Act. The information sought at point nos 1, 2 & 3 is certainly not clarificatory in nature and is duly covered under RTI Act. The details of information sought, reply of CPIO & grounds of this appeal are as under Point No. 1 (a) Information sought - To which authority (Chief Information Commissioner or Delhi High Court or any other authority), I can file appeal for REVIEW or AGAINST of the aforesaid orders dt 4.2.2022 (b) Reply of CPIO - The information sought is of clarificatory nature and does not fall u/s 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. However, it is to intimate that CIC does not review its own decisions. (c) Grounds of appeal - Information provided had not been sought by me. I had sought the name of the authority to whom an appeal against the decision of IC can be filed but the same has been refused Point No. 2 (a) Information sought - Under which Section of RTI Act, the CPIO can seek amount at the rate of Rs. 2 per page from the applicants even after the lapse of 87 days beyond receipt of application under RTI Act which had been considered by Learned IC while rejecting my application (b) Reply of CPIO - The information sought is of clarificatory nature and does not fall u/s 2(f) of RTI Act (c) Grounds of appeal - CPIO has refused to provide the section number under which the CPIO can seek amount of Rs. 2/- per page even after 87 days of receiving the application. IC concerned must have applied that Section while considering the said action of CPIO valid. Point No. 3 (a) Information sought - Under which Section, the provisions of Section 7(6) can be ignored and superseded by CPIO or FAA or IC (b) Reply of CPIO - The information sought is of clarificatory nature and does not fall u/s 2(f) of RTI Act (c) Grounds of appeal - CPIO has refused to provide information by treating as if I had sought any clarifications BUT factually, I had sought only the Section of the Act under which the provisions of Section 7(6) of the RTI Act can be ignored & superseded. FAA is requested to kindly direct the concerned CPIO of the CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION to kindly provide me the sought information point wise & clearly as sought so that I may file appeal before the next appropriate authority against the order dated 04.02.2022 in r/o my second appeal 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 interpret or clarify anything on the information. In the instant case, the appellant can always refer to the RTI Act, 2005, which is already in public domain. 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
1769 CICOM/A/E/22/00106 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00296 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: To, The FAA CIC Sub.First Appeal SIR Provide information as per original Rti Application point wise in first Appeal Designated CPIO Neither Comments Remarks paas Nor Attached any Reply Documents But online status seen Disposed pls Take cognizance & Disposal Accordingly SIR Note.i call at CIC Helpline & Other Public Domain contact But Not Resolution in connection with 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. 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
1770 CICOM/A/E/22/00107 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-04-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00207 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: CPIO and designated Officer IC-HS has requested vide his letter dated 01.04.2022 (uploaded on 04.04.2022 after 32 days) to Appellant to deposit Rs 28/-being cost of photo copy of 14 pages. But it is astounding for the Appellant that CPIO and designated Officer IC-HS did not mention the name to whom Appellant should draw the Indian Postal Order/ Demand Draft. Apart from, the Act is also having the provision of online payment of additional fees for which CPIO and designated Officer IC-HS did not adhere. Thus, CPIO and designated Officer IC-HS has failed to provide information to appellant in the true spirit of Act. Therefore, FAA is requested to invoke the provision of under section 7 (6), wherein the person making request for the information shall be provided the information free of charge where a public authority fails to comply with the time limits specified in sub section (1). 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 grounds of first appeal are found to be valid and hence CPIO is directed to provide the information sought free of cost to the Appellant by 03/05/2022. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA