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
1801 CICOM/A/E/22/00088 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 10-03-2022 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/22/00209/1 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। अतः बिंदु संख्या 2, 3, 6, 7, एवं 9 के अनुसार 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। तथा बिंदु संख्या 5 में सार्वजनिक की जा चुकी है । तथा मांगी गई सूचना जो सार्वजनिक रूप से उपलब्ध है, सूचना का अधिकार, अधिनियम की धारा 2 ( च ) में नहीं आती। 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
1802 CICOM/A/E/22/00087 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-03-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/22/00015 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating “Respected Sir, With due respect and utmost regard, it is most humbly submitted that on 9 February 2022, the undersigned appellant (then as applicant) filed an online RTI application with Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) bearing number DOP&T/R/E/22/00808 seeking the following information as mentioned hereinafter. The DoPT transferred the RTI application to Central Information Commission (CIC) vide number CICOM/R/T/22/00015 on 14 February 2022. The information sought is an under - Please provide me the complete and up to date information pertaining to grant of Pension and / or any other pensionary benefits to Chief Information Commissioners as well as Information Commissioners after completion of their tenure in Central Information Commission as per RTI Act, 2005 and / or appropriate Rules framed thereunder. Also, please provide me the complete and up to date information pertaining to grant of Pension and / or any other pensionary benefits as granted to State Chief Information Commissioners as well as State Information Commissioners after completion of their tenure in State Information Commission as per RTI Act, 2005 and / or appropriate Rules framed thereunder. The learned CPIO, VB Hariharan, Consulant (Ad mn) in CIC has although replied on 2 March 2022 but he has merely given the weblink of Department of Personnel & Training website relating to DoPT framed 2019 Rules viz. The Right to Information (Term of Office, Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and Conditions of Service of Chief Information Commissioner, Information Commissioners in the Central Information Commission, State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners in the State Information Commission) Rules, 2019. In this regard, it is most humbly asserted that the aforementioned RTI Rules, 2019 don’t have any provision pertaining to grant of (Additional) Pension etc. to Chief Information Commissioners as well as Information Commissioners after completion of their tenure in Central Information Commission as per RTI Act, 2005. Similarly, such Rules don’t have any provision pertaining to grant of grant of (Additional) Pension etc. to State Chief Information Commissioners as well as State Information Commissioners after completion of their tenure in State Information Commission as per RTI Act, 2005. Even otherwise, if the information as sought was available with DoPT in the form of RTI Rules, 2019 as framed by it and even uploaded on its website as has been replied by learned CPIO in CIC, then DoPT should not have transferred the instant RTI to CIC. Hence, it is most humbly requested that either the complete information as sought i.e. pertaining to grant of (Additional) Pension etc. to Chief Information Commissioners as well as Information Commissioners after completion of their tenure in Central Information Commission as well as pertaining to grant of grant of (Additional) Pension etc. to State Chief Information Commissioners as well” DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. It is observed that the document of the year 2019, related to the information sought by RTI Applicant has been provided by the CPIO. However, the information related to pension benefits to Chief Information Commissioners as well as Information Commissioners in CIC and State Chief Information Commissioners as well as State Information Commissioners was not provided by CPIO. Accordingly, CPIO (Admin Section) is directed to revisit the RTI application and appropriately reply to the appellant as per records according to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 01/04/2022, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1803 CICOM/A/E/22/00086 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-03-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00039 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating the followings point-wise grounds: Point No. 2 : CPIO certified copy of 1st AA order not provided. Point No. 3: Misleading information. see Annexure 1 which show only 2 orders of Appellant are visible out of CICOM/A/E/20/00097, CICOM/A/E/20/00240, CICOM/A/E/21/00022, CICOM/A/E/21/00056, CICOM/A/E/21/00150 CICOM/A/E/21/00222 CICOM/A/E/21/00223, CICOM/A/E/21/00258 (Visible), CICOM/A/E/21/00259 (Visible) CICOM/A/E/21/00277, CICOM/A/E/22/00035 out of disposed 1st Appeals visible on RTI-on-line portal Point No. 4: Misleading information. see Annexure 1 that shows 1. that many orders on CIC web-site are illegible. 2. 1 st Appeals disposed by MEENA BALIMANE SHARMA are shown as if they have been disposed by AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE Point No. 5 A: Misleading information. No-where in Annexure B it is written that unsigned order of 1st Appellant authority will be uploaded. Appellant has seen DOPT RTI portal and it is observed that 1st Appellant Authority’s uploaded orders are signed orders. Point No. 5 B1: Name of the CPIO not provided Point No. 5 B2: Name of the service provider not provided Point No. 5 B3: Sources of input to the service provider named in para B2 not provided Point No. 5 B4: Outputs CIC gets from the service provider named in para B2 not provided. Point No. 5 C10: 1. the afore mentioned CPIO s are misleading by providing incomplete information. Responding CPIO’s have not provided the procedure they adopt to give inputs to the software or the Procedure given by software developer how to use the software Appscom software system of CIC to upload documents in the e Book. 2. No Response by CPIOs of Central Registry-1, Central Registry – II, Registry of Shri Heeralal Samariya, IC and Shri Uday Mahurkar, IC Point No. 5 C 12: Name of the CIC office responsible for sending system generate email/document not provided. Point No. 5 C 13: Response of CPIO is false/misleading. RTI Applications do not contain email ids of Respondents. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by CPIOs of CIC have been perused. For Point No. 2 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, no certified copy is maintained by the CPIO, so 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. 3 & 4 CPIO RTI Cell is directed to communicate the need of such compliance to the officer responsible for suo moto disclosure in this regard and so as to ensure the correctness of the same. For Point No. 5A 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, sufficient information is provided by the CPIO and the information available on the DoPT portal cannot change the decision of 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. For Point No. 5B1, 5B2, 5B3, 5B4, 5C12 CPIO (MR Section) is directed to revisit the RTI application and appropriately reply to the appellant as per records according to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 04/04/2022, free of cost. For Point No. 5C 10- In the instant case, the CPIO MR Section referred to CPIOs of ICs i.e. CIC(YS), IC (NG), IC(HS), IC(AP), IC(SC), IC(VN), IC(SP) & IC(UM) and did not referred to CPIO CR-I and CR-II for Point No. 5C10. CPIO DR to IC(HS), CPIO DR to IC(AP) & CPIO DR to IC (UM) are directed to reply to the appellant as per records according to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 04/04/2022, free of cost. For Point No. 5C13 In the instant case, the appellant in the RTI application has mentioned the source of email ids in relation to hearing/ uploading of decision of 2nd Appeal whereas in the grounds of appeal he has mentioned the source of email ids of Respondents in the RTI Application. Thus, the grounds in First Appeal are not in-line with the information sought in 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
1804 CICOM/A/P/22/00018 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 04-03-2022 आपके द्वारा की गई ई मेल जिसमें आपने यह जिक्र किया है, कि पोर्टल के माध्यम से प्रथम अपील सबमिट नहीं हो पा रही है, अतः मेरे प्रथम अपील मेल द्वारा प्राप्त कर कार्यवाही करने का श्रम करे। आपकी इस प्रार्थना को स्वीकार करते हुए, आपके द्वारा दी गई ई मेल आईडी और ऑनलाइन आर.टी.आई में दी गई ई मेल आईडी समान होने के वजह से आपकी प्रथम अपील दायर की गई है। अतः आगे से ऑनलाइन या डाक द्वारा ही प्रथम अपील दायर करने की कृपया करे। 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/22/00104 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। अपीलकर्ता द्वारा मांगी गई सूचना दे दी गई 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
1805 CICOM/A/P/22/00022 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-03-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/21/00394 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant in the first appeal states that no specific information is provided by the CPIO but a general type of reply is provided and specific reply on Para 2 is not provided. DECISION OF 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 17.08.2021. 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
1806 CICOM/A/P/22/00023 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-03-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00037 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant in the first appeal states that no information is received by him and requests for the same. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and CPIO’s reply have been perused. The CPIO of CIC have provided information as per the records of the Commission. 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 first appeal dated 23.02.2022 before receiving the reply from the CPIO(Legal Section) dated 22.02.2022. 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
1807 CICOM/A/P/22/00019 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-03-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/21/00531 Dispatched on 11.03.2022 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant in the first appeal states that no information on action taken by CIC and no role of the CPIO, CIC w.r.t. W.P.(C) No. 17085 of 2021 of Hon’ble High Court, Orrisa. The appellant prays that appeal shall be admitted and desired information on action taken shall be provided. DECISION OF 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 Legal Cell has disposed of the RTI application electronically on the RTI portal dated 09.12.2021 but did not send the reply to the appellant physically. Notwithstanding the above, the CPIO Legal Cell is directed to provide the desired information to the appellant by 21/03/2022, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1808 CICOM/A/P/22/00021 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-03-2022 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/22/00015 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 11.02.2022 तक कोई सूचना नहीं प्रदान की गई है, जबकि केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी ने 13.01.2022 को ही सूचना दे दी है। जिसकी प्रति प्रथम अपील के आदेश के साथ सलग्न कर दी गई 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
1809 CICOM/A/P/22/00024 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-03-2022 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/22/00016 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 12.02.2022 तक कोई सूचना नहीं प्रदान की गई है, जबकि केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी ने 13.01.2022 को ही सूचना दे दी है। जिसकी प्रति प्रथम अपील के आदेश के साथ सलग्न कर दी गई 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
1810 CICOM/A/P/22/00020 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-03-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/22/00030 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant in the first appeal states that there should be a limit of points/queries which can be raised in a RTI application for obtaining information from any Public Information Officer and as such, the Commission may please consider this issue and fix maximum number of points/queries which can be raised in a RTI application for obtaining information from any Public Information Officer and this may please be confirmed. However, I may like to draw your kind attention to your Office Decision No.CIC/OK/A/08/00831 Dated May 11, 2009 given by Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Hon’ble Information Commissioner, Central Information Commission, New Delhi on May 11, 2009. 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 grounds of appeals i.e. suggestion regarding limit of points/queries which can be raised in a RTI Application 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