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
1781 CICOM/A/E/22/00102 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 26-03-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/22/00017 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: In the requested information, I have not been provided the information correctly and misleading answer has been given, no accountability has been fixed, please provide the information requested for this answer correctly and officially. I am enclosing the requested information as a copy. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by CPIO 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 information sought does not come under the definition of “information”, as defined in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. 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
1782 CICOM/A/E/22/00099 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-03-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00173 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: CICOM/R/E/22/00173 (1) Q-1 Learned CPIO has failed to provide speedpost details of CICOM/R/T/21/00066, CICOM/R/T/21/01113, CICOM/R/T/21/01115 to reveal actual delivery dates for justifying illegal rejection of first appeal by Mr Sontakke by labeling delay in filing first appeals. FAA Mr Sontakke (who himself rejected these firstappeals of these three applications on grounds of delay) is requested to provide delivery details by revealing speedpost numbers. (2) Mr Sontakke (highly impatient in rejecting first appeals on the grounds of delay in filing WITHOUT FULFILLING HIS DUTY AS FAA by complying DoPT guide for FAA) needs review of these four first appeals illegally rejected in the haste to rejection as usual. (3) Mr Sontakke conduct has always been illegal in disposal of first appeals without giving reasoned order without including pointwise reply of grounds of first appeal without CONDUCTING HEARING MANDATED BY NUMEROUS SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS. He has been his own judge by flouting natural justice principles by disposing 15 first appeals in one hour entirely illegal manner. (4) Q-2, 3 During covid lockdown in January 2022, everywhere there was reasonable relaxation in implied manner if not in explicit manner. So FAA (who is highly impatient in rejection preferably on grounds of delay in filing first appeal needing no input of FAA) is requested to disclose grounds of rejection on his favourite reason of late filing of first appeal amidst covid lockdown in entire country. (5) Q-4 Very anticitizens conduct of Mr Sontakke in summary rejection of first appeals needing disclosure of special powers inherent to him BY AVOIDING NATURAL JUSTICE PRINCIPLES BY AVOIDING HEARING AVOIDING POINTWISE REASONED DECISION AVOIDING ASKING FROM CPIO REPLY OF GROUNDS OF FIRST APPEALS . Such anticitizens conduct needs disclosure . (6) Q-5 also needs disclosure of training in view of all the first appeals blindly rejected by blindly concurring with CPIO by blindly singing on ready made replies. This can be proved by disposing 15 first appeals in one hour which is extremely illegal misconduct. Ironically, Mr Sontakke has been DoPT employee and biggest flouter of DoPT guide for FAA needing disclosure. (7) As usual in all previous replies, learned CPIO sent reply by entirely hiding desired query deliberately which will be uploaded on the cic website in meaningless manner defeating section 4(2) of RTI Act as well as DoPT circulars of 2013, 2019 of uploading of queries with reply minimize rti use. (8) Due to extreme flouting of rulings by FAA Mr Sontakke, CIC HAS BECOME THE BIGGEST OFFENDER OF RTI ACT IN RTI REPLY, FIRST APPEAL DECISIONS IN VIEW OF MY PREVIOUS REPLIES, FIRST APPEAL DECISIONS NEEDING TRANSPARENCY IN UPLOADING OF REPLY by disclosing query, FIRST APPEAL DECISIONS disclosing grounds of appeal with query TO REVEAL MISCONDUCT OF CIC BADLY AFFECTING ENTIRE INDIA. Encl- DoPT guide for FAA like Mr Sontakke who is worst offender of this guide 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
1783 CICOM/A/E/22/00101 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-03-2022 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: Ground: Solicited information not supplied even after payment of additional Fee. Prayer: The Appeal kindly be decided with in 48 Hours and the PIO kindly be directed to supply the complete solicited information with in 48 Hours through registered post. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. The appellant prayed for early disposal of appeal in the grounds of appeals i.e. within 48 hours, but did not provide any cogent evidence as how the information sought concerns to the life or liberty of a person. The RTI applicant has contested that solicited information was not supplied by CPIO, even after payment of additional fees. This contestation is found to be correct. Accordingly, CPIO DR to CIC(YS) is directed to provide the desired information to the appellant by 11/04/2022, if the payment as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 is received from the Appellant. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1784 CICOM/A/E/22/00098 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-03-2022 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 In the instant case, the RTI applicant has sought for the following information– “Details of agenda, proceedings and final decision made by CIC to stop uploading on its website rti query with reply, first appeal decision with grounds after august 2021 till date ,if any, needing disclosure in wide public interest” The CPIO (MR Section) is directed to revisit the RTI application and either appropriately provide the information to the appellant, if any records related to the information sought is available or reply suitably if no such record is available. Further reply for Point No. 2 & 3 may also be provided by 26/04/2022, free of cost. For Point No. 4 As per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. Based on this, it is understood that whether the disclosure of certain RTI request and the reply thereof as well as contents of first appeal and the order of FAA thereof is the statutory mandate of concerned CPIO and FAA, respectively. Accordingly, CPIO (RTI Cell) deciding about application of Section 8 (1) (j) to various RTI replies and FAA orders which were disposed of the then CPIOs and FAAs is not appropriate. Hence, CPIO (RTI Cell) is hereby directed to provide the information as was decided by the concerned CPIO and FAA in the related RTI applications and First Appeals as per the RTI Act, 2005, if such information is under the custody of CPIO and hence accessible by CPIO. This is because, 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 CPIO (RTI Cell) in his reply has mentioned,” desired information is not readily available in single file/folder, collection of information is too much time consuming and it would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority.” After perusing the RTI application and reply of the CPIO, CPIO is directed to clearly mention if the information is available with the CPIO or not. If the information sought is available and accessible by CPIO (RTI Cell), such information is treated as “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 and hence must be dealt with as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. However, if such information is neither under the custody of CPIO (RTI Cell) nor accessible to him, CPIO (RTI Cell) shall transfer the RTI application under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 by 26/04/2022. For Point No. 5 In the instant case, the CPIO (RTI Cell) in his reply has mentioned,” No such information is available on record.” 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 for point no. 5 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
1785 CICOM/A/E/22/00095 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-03-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00165 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: DEAR FAA, I am not satisfied with your CPIO reply I am totally disappointed with it. My queries are very simple but your CPIO is confused with it. I am not asking the clarification from him. I am just asking the accurate information from him. Regarding my queries your CPIO mentioned “For provisions of RTI Act, 2005, you may like to go through the RTI Act which is available on CIC websites link https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/RTI-Act_English.pdf”. As per his advice I visit the above mentioned website to gather the information and I collect some information so, now as a citizen of Bharath / India I submitted the information to you. Now give me the accurate information in this first appeal stage. 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 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
1786 CICOM/A/E/22/00096 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-03-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00165/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: DEAR FAA, I am not satisfied with your CPIO reply. SO, now I file this first appeal in this stage give me the accurate reply for my simple query. “In the time of hearing I clearly mentioned that I am not satisfied with the documents which I received from LIC OF INDIA for my RTI. In the session I clearly mentioned that I want the email print copy [I paste the email print copy in my RTI also] In the email print my incentive calculation only mention!! Apart my incentive calculation there is no any details are mention. Honorable Judge also agreed in the time of hearing which is held on 24.11.2020. He put order to respondent to facilitate inspection of records to the appellant related to his incentive calculations. 17.12.2020 as per the CIC order LIC OF INDIA conduct the “INSPECTION”. I refer the documents which is related for my incentive calculation, I find out the email copy which is totally related with my incentive calculation. I ask the email print from them with proper attestation with seal and sign / verified seal of RTI. But they [LIC OF INDIA] “REFUSE” to give me the Email print”. The actual purpose of the Inspection is to find out the Email print and get it from the LIC OF INDIA. I find out the Email print but the LICI is not ready to handover me!! If they are not handover me means then what is the purpose of the “Inspection”???? So, immediately I file the Non-Compliance but with your CPIO reply it is very clear that your CIC is file to take the necessary action!! What is this?? As on date I blindly believe the Central Information Commission that you will take the action. But almost 1 year passed but no response from your side. So, only now I file the RTI on you. It is your CIC responsibility to take the necessary action. If you are fail to take the action means now tell me what shall I do next. 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 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 grounds of appeal mentioned by the appellant are beyond the purview of the FAA. 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
1787 CICOM/A/E/22/00097 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-03-2022 ऑनलाइन आर. टी. आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता ने बिंदु संख्या 4 और बिंदु संख्या 5 पर प्रथम अपील की है। अतः बिंदु संख्या 4 के लिए केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के अनुसार सूचना प्रेषित की जाये। इस आदेश के प्राप्ति के दस दिन के भीतर आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/22/00181 तहत बिंदु संख्या 4 में मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर प्रदान की गई जानकारी यदि कोई हो तो अपीलकर्ता को पुनः स्पष्ट तथा निःशुल्क प्रदान की जाए। बिंदु संख्या 5 में सूचना का 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
1788 CICOM/A/E/22/00094 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-03-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00134 The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that: Sir, This has reference to my RTI CICOM/R/E/22/00134 dated 13/02/2022 vide which I asked for below information against CIC Order No. CIC/EMCDN/A/2020/673057 dated 22/11/2021. 1. Please inform action taken on my above referred letter along with communication letters. 2. Please provide copy of communication sent to related parties to compliance the CIC order No. CIC/EMCDN/A/2020/673057 dated 22/11/2021 3. Please inform action taken by CIC for non-compliance of order No. CIC/EMCDN/A/2020/673057 dated 22/11/2021 against PIO EDMC. But I have received an incomplete and unsatiesfactory reply and PIO is not cooperating to give reply as per CIC order knownly. 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 CPIO DR to IC-HS is directed to revisit the RTI application and appropriately reply about the action taken, if any, along with the requisite communication letters, if any. In case, CPIO does not hold any information in this regard to, CPIO must quote the appropriate section under the RTI Act, 2005 for his inability of providing the information to the appellant by 07/04/2022, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1789 CICOM/A/E/22/00093 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 19-03-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00031 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating: Respected sir, I would like to place my first appeal for my case CICOM/R/E/22/00031. Some so called Bank officials were involved in corruption and were working against the schemes of Government and CVC guidelines, in this regards some information was sought by me in RTI to expose the corruption, which was not provided to me by the Bank, It would have been better. That if the information sought in RTI is made available to me at the earliest, then perhaps a very big truth can come out, I am sure that the information sought by me will be provided to me soon. Thanks & Regards Appellant Ravindra Kumar mob : 9752239469 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 07.02.2022. 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
1790 CICOM/A/E/22/00092 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 17-03-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/22/00022 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating refused access to information requested and mentioned: Sir I have not been any information .Kindly find attachment for further action which is to addressed prime minister of india and forwarded leter from pmo office vide letter n0 RTI/10868/2021- pmr to you in compliance with law. Enclosed- an copy of request 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 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 filed the RTI application with National Commission for Women with RTI No. NCFWO/R/E/22/00098 dated 24/02/2022 and it was transferred to Central Information Commission on 24/02/2022 with RTI No. CICOM/R/T/22/00022. 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