| SNo. | Registration No | Appellate Authority Name | Received date | Reply Appeal | Reply Doc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1821 | CICOM/A/P/22/00015 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 18-02-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/21/00621 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant in the first appeal states regarding non-compliance of CIC Order by DoPT and requests the FAA to get the information from the CPIO-DOPT at the earliest. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. The CPIO-CIC has 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 grounds of appeal mentioned above by the appellant are beyond the purview of the First Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO-CIC 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 |
| 1822 | CICOM/A/E/22/00077 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 17-02-2022 | ऑनलाइन आर. टी. आई. आवेदन, पà¥à¤°à¤¦à¤¾à¤¨ की गई सूचना à¤à¤µà¤‚ पà¥à¤°à¤¥à¤® अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकरà¥à¤¤à¤¾ के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/22/00136 के पà¥à¤°à¤¤à¤¿à¤‰à¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤° में केंदà¥à¤°à¥€à¤¯ जन सूचना अधिकारियों दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ पà¥à¤°à¥‡à¤·à¤¿à¤¤ की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के पà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤µà¤§à¤¾à¤¨à¥‹à¤‚ à¤à¤µà¤‚ मांगी गई सूचना के अनà¥à¤¸à¤¾à¤° ही है। अतः केंदà¥à¤°à¥€à¤¯ जन सूचना अधिकारी दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾ पà¥à¤°à¤¦à¤¾à¤¨ की गई सूचना तथà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¤à¥à¤®à¤• है और इसमें पà¥à¤°à¤¥à¤® अपीलीय अधिकारी के हसà¥à¤¤à¤•à¥à¤·à¥‡à¤ª की कोई आवशà¥à¤¯à¤•à¤¤à¤¾ नहीं है। | NA |
| 1823 | CICOM/A/E/22/00075 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 17-02-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01122 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating: MY “PRAYER/PLEA†IN THIS FIRST APPEAL: 1. In the FAA capacity, please call for an explanation from CPIO why the complete and correct information was not provided in one Go. 2. Please direct the CPIO to provide the requested information at the earliest for all the points separately with proper response collected from all the stakeholders. 3. Under the present Rules and Regulations of RTI Act 2005, please ensure the adherence to the time limits specified in the RTI Act 2005 as well as respect the RTI Act in its letter and spirit. 4. To give more clarity, appellant would like to be present during the First Appeal hearing under the RTI Act 2005. Considering the Lockdown situation, appellant would like to attend the same through Video Conferencing. Kindly therefore, inform to appellant in advance about the Platform details for Video conferencing, date, & time of the Hearing scheduled , to enable appellant to attend the same. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. The CPIO-CIC has provided information as per the records of the Commission. The submissions made by the appellant in his first appeal application are sufficient for consideration by the FAA to arrive at a decision. Accordingly, it was felt that the personal hearing as requested by appellant was not necessary. 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 CPIO has provided the documents received from the CPIO available on 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 |
| 1824 | CICOM/A/E/22/00074 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 17-02-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00085 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating: The information provide under RTI Gradiente infotainment ltd and karvy computer share pvt ltd preatains, to same issue as conveyed under RTI it preatains, to settlement matter or previously it was conveyed it preatains, to owneship of shares and shares fraduently, transfered As, per Record Both entities information supply to sebi but different, information supply Gradiente infotainment information supply to sebi which was taken on record in CICwith refrence to disclosure of Name soecified Harban Singh Sahni on year 1995 and shares was dispatched at application address but there was no specifed information provided by company shares was alloted to Harbans Singh sahni on year 1995 and shares, was transfered on 2010 to Mohammad Abdul Muqueet and company promoter paid Rs 40000 and which was order by CIC Dated 1st june 2020 it preatains to settlement matter settlement matter can be done of share Application Money also But the information provided By karvy computer share private ltd to sebi taken on record in CIC Did not specify any settlement done against kavy And karvy information supply with refrence to disclosure of name of Harbans Singh sahni on year 1995 and Shares was transfered on year 2010 so sebi has conveyed under RTI it preatains to ownership of Shares and shares fraduently transfered and information does not preatains to any Ammount or shares taken by karvy which preatains to any settlement so as per Record both entities information supply sebi both different so it does not preatains to same issue as conveyed under RTI Act DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. The CPIO-CIC has 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 CPIO has also offered inspection of records on a mutually agreed time and date and the grounds of appeal mentioned are beyond the purview of the First Appellate 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 |
| 1825 | CICOM/A/E/22/00076 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 17-02-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01193 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : GROUNDS OF FIRST APPEAL: 1. TILL TODAY, REQUIRED INFORMATION HAS NOT RECEIVED. 2. NOT ACKNOWLEDGING AN E MAIL. 3. NOT REPLYING AN E MAIL. 4. FALSE INFORMATION PROVIDED. AS PER THE REPLY DATED JANUARY 19, 2022 OF THE ABOVE RTI, I HAVE SENT A DEMAND DRAFT OF RS 34.00, PAYABLE AT NEW DELHI, DATED JANUARY 21, FROM HDFC BANK. I HAVE SENT IT BY REGISTERED POST RM648847817IN ON JANUARY 24 WHICH WAS RECEIVED ON JANUARY 28 AT THE ADDRESS PROVIDED IN THE REPLY. TILL TODAY, REQUIRED INFORMATION HAS NOT RECEIVED. ON FEBRUARY 10, I WROTE AN E MAIL TO THE CPIO, BUT IT WAS NEITHER ACKNOWLEDGED NOR REPLIED BY CPIO. FALSE TEL NO 01126185298 OF CPIO IS PROVIDED IN STATUS FORM. I HAVE ATTACHED ALL THE DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT THE FIRST APPEAL. 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-UM is directed to provide the desired information to the appellant by 21/03/2022 as mentioned in the reply of the RTI application by the CPIO if the payment is received from the Appellant as demanded by CPIO earlier. (copy of payment receipt of the fee as attached by the Appellant is attached herewith) The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1826 | CICOM/A/E/22/00071 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 16-02-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00083 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : Sir I was asked for information about some things in rti that I did not understand, and did not clear . But they told us to study the act and sent us a link rti act link My request is 1.What is the time period to inspect records and registers under rti act ? 2.Can I allow to inspect records and registers under rti act through oral without any written 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 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 |
| 1827 | CICOM/A/E/22/00073 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 16-02-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00095 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating: Ground of Appeal Information is available with CIC only denial of information in the file A. As per Record available Gradiente information supplied with refrence to disclosure of name Of Harban Singh Sahni so there was no information available with CIC and on Record shares was alloted by company Gradiente infotainment ltd to Harbans Singh sahni and Shares was transfered By Harbans Singh Sahni which was disposed off By CIC Dated 23 RD dec 2021 B. As per Record available with CIC the information was supplied by Karvy Computer Share, private ltd Dated 6 Aug 2018 to sebi with refrence to Disclosure of Name Harbans Singh Sahni and Shares was transfered by Harbans Singh And the information was always denied it preatains to same, issue when it was preataing to same issue both information supplied to sebi but different information DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. The CPIO-CIC has 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 CPIO has also offered inspection of records on a mutually agreed time and date and the grounds of appeal mentioned are beyond the purview of the First Appellate 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 |
| 1828 | CICOM/A/E/22/00072 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 16-02-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/22/00011 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating: Ground of Appeal unsatisfied with the reply of CIC Under RTI that the matter was disposed of its commission which preatains to same issue Appeal or complaint has, been already been disposed of 23.12.2021 Information, Provided BY Sebi to CIC Dated 1St june 2020 with refrence to information of Gradiente infotainment shares was alloted to Harban Singh Sahni and, dispatched by company,to Applicant Address and company paid Rs 40000 (Sudheep Raj Mathur) on 2018 For which documents was enclosed, but information does not specifies by company Gadiente infotainment ltd /Sebi with the refrence to disclosure of name Submitted shares was alloted to Harbans Singh Sahni and Shares were transfered by Harbans Singh Sahni with the refrence to information supplied against Gradiente infotainment ltd which was taken on Record But as, per Dated 23 Dec 2021 RTA information which was disposed of CIC As, per Record Gradiente Infotainment Ltd information does not preatains to any disclosure of Name Of Harbans, Singh Sahni But RTA information seek which was rejected it preatains to same issue DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. The CPIO-CIC has 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 CPIO has also offered inspection of records on a mutually agreed time and date and the grounds of appeal mentioned are beyond the purview of the First Appellate 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 |
| 1829 | CICOM/A/E/22/00070 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 14-02-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00042 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/22/00042 REQUEST FOR UPLOADING OF POINTWISE DISPOSAL OF THIS FIRST APPEAL WITH GROUNDS OF FIRST APPEAL, QUERY OF APPLICATION ON THE CIC WEBSITE RATHER THAN UPLOADING MEANINGLESS DECISIONS WITHOUT CITING QUERY,GROUNDS OF APPEAL VIOLATING SECTION 4(2) OF RTI ACT AS WELL AS DOPT CIRCULAR OF 2013,2019 FOR DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION WITH CITIZENS TO MINIMIZE RTI USE As usual in this application like in all previous replies, learned CPIO sent reply by entirely hiding desired query Q-1 to 3 without showing my queries deliberately which will likely to 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. This time again my reply has been sent by most delinquent CPIO of CIC without any jurisdiction without bothering to check the reply being sent by him. (1) Q-1, 2 no reply given by CPIO . Even this rti application reply making my Q-1,2 evidently clear of hiding queries of rti applications. FAA is requested to take disciplinary action against such CPIO badly affecting entire Indian citizens by deliberately sending fake , misleading information. (2) url given by CPIO is showing six months old rti replies. So none of my rti reply has been uploaded on cic website till date in the last two months as 8-august 2021 is the latest rti reply by CIC . (3) Q-3 FAA is requested to provide copy of complete queries with replies of CIC (rather than vague meaningless replies against section 4(2) , violating DoPT circular) (4) FAA is REQUESTED TO DISPLAY ALL RTI REPLIES IN REAL TIME LIKE DOPT WEBSITE HIDING NEITHER QUERY NOR FIRST APPEAL GROUNDS in view of suppressing last six months replies, first appeal decisions by cic . FAA as usual disposed first appeals without bothering to dispose pointwise in quasi-judicial manner OR by conducting hearing badly violating law in all previous first appeals. Now in this first appeal , FAA is requested to disclose my grounds of appeal in its uploaded first appeal decision on cic website with my name rather than entirely hiding APPLICANT NAME , grounds of appeal, queries of application as usual violating section 4(2) of RTI Act for minimizing rti use by citizens by dissemination of maximum information. 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(M&R Section) is directed to revisit the RTI application and appropriately reply to the appellant as per records by 11/03/2022, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1830 | CICOM/A/E/22/00069 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 14-02-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00090 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/22/00090 REQUEST FOR UPLOADING OF POINTWISE DISPOSAL OF THIS FIRST APPEAL WITH GROUNDS OF FIRST APPEAL, QUERY OF APPLICATION ON THE CIC WEBSITE RATHER THAN UPLOADING MEANINGLESS DECISIONS WITHOUT CITING QUERY,GROUNDS OF APPEAL VIOLATING SECTION 4(2) OF RTI ACT AS WELL AS DOPT CIRCULAR OF 2013,2019 FOR DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION WITH CITIZENS TO MINIMIZE RTI USE As usual in this application like 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. (1) Q-1 No details of selection showing transparency of such delinquent employee disclosed in the reply like socalled short list prepared after advt, comparative marks awarded to others candidates. Disclosure needed by complying transparency due to illegal disposing every application without his jurisdiction . (2) Q-3 No disclosure of rti training to such delinquent employee given. (3) Q-4 to 6 no specific url given pertaining to socalled M&R section FAA as usual disposed first appeals without bothering to dispose pointwise in quasi-judicial manner OR by conducting hearing badly violating law in all previous first appeals . Now in this first appeal , FAA is requested to disclose my grounds of appeal in its uploaded first appeal decision on cic website with my name rather than entirely hiding APPLICANT NAME , grounds of appeal, queries of application as usual violating section 4(2) of RTI Act for minimizing rti use by citizens by dissemination of maximum information. III. 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 |