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
1831 CICOM/A/E/22/00068 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 13-02-2022 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/22/00011 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 केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना तथ्यात्मक है और 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
1832 CICOM/A/E/22/00067 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 13-02-2022 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/22/00063 के प्रतिउत्तर में बिंदु सं 1 की सूचना केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी, श्री आर. पी. ग्रोवर द्वारा प्रदान की गई है, बिंदु सं 2 एवं 3 की सूचना केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी, श्री एस. के. रब्बानी द्वारा प्रदान की गई है तथा बिंदु सं 4 की सूचना केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी, श्री सुबोध कुमार द्वारा प्रदान की गई है परन्तु गलती से बिंदु सं 4 की जगह बिंदु 5 लिखा गया है। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी श्री सुबोध कुमार जी को सलाह दी जाती है कि भविष्य में आर.टी.आई का निष्तारण करने में सावधानी बरतें। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारिओं द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना तथ्यात्मक है और इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है। NA
1833 CICOM/A/E/22/00065 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-02-2022 Ref RTI No.-CICOM/R/E/22/00072/2 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that the CPIO provided partial information and no answer is given for Point 5, 6, 7, and 8. DECISION OF THE 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. The information once published in public domain may not be treated as information held by a particular public authority. In the instant case, the CPIO(M&R Section) has provided information for Point 1 to 4 on 07.02.2022 as the CPIO(M&R Section) was only liable to provide information from Point 1 to 4 of the RTI application. Furthermore, for point no. 5 & 6 CPIO RTI Cell and for point no. 7 & 8 CPIO (Admin Section) has provided information within the prescribed time as per RTI Act, 2005 and the appellant has made First Appeal before receiving the reply of all the CPIOs. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1834 CICOM/A/E/22/00066 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-02-2022 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/21/01099 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 सूचना अधिकार अधिकारी 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
1835 CICOM/A/E/22/00062 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 10-02-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00053 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating: Ground, of Appeal My Query Raised is sepecific while closing up complaint Number SEBIP/AP17/0000189/1 which was investigated by sebi has been already filed by investigation officer of sebi which preatain to any allotment of year 1995 and it has been investigated after taking up with the company Apellant was alloted as per record of sebi complaint from Apellant was raised in 2014 and 2017 which was also comunicated by sebi to CIC on hearing and is marked as part c 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. 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
1836 CICOM/A/E/22/00064 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 10-02-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00040/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/22/00040/1 Q-4 Learned CPIO only cited socalled braining storming session of rti . FAA is requested to disclose details of socalled brain storm session like its duration in hours/days in view of extremely abusing Madras highcourt judgment by Mr Kasana in depriving fundamental right of applicant to access ones own second appeal, respondents replies. 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
1837 CICOM/A/E/22/00063 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 10-02-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00041 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/22/00041 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. 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, 2, 4 & 5 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. For Point 3 & 6 - The CPIO (Admin 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
1838 CICOM/A/E/22/00061 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-02-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/22/00062 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating: Ground of Appeal Refused to acess the information Even the, information provided by company Gradiente Infotainment ltd to sebi does not specifies shares was alloted to Harbans Singh Sahni on year 1995 and Shares was transfered By Harbans Singh Sahni on 2010 to Mohammad Abdul Muqueet with refrence to disclosure of Name submitted By Company Gradiente infotainment ltd to Sebi in Name of Harban Singh Sahni 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
1839 CICOM/A/E/22/00060 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-02-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01179 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating: The CPIO has failed to provide complete and correct required information duly certified true copy whereas only incomplete, incorrect and misleading information was given. Being dissatisfied, I hereby prefer my first appeal against the incorrect reply supplied by CPIO as per provision contained in section 19 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, Relief sought 4. I humbly prayer for the following :- (a) The CPIO be directed to provide complete and correct information duly certified true copy. (b) Opportunity of personal hearing through video conferencing to express my concern may kindly be given while passing decision in the matter in the interest 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. 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. 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. 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
1840 CICOM/A/E/22/00056 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 31-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01228 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : Now its been 3 years and I have not received any information from CPIO. AND CIC has not taken any action despite my second appeal and complaint sent to CIC about the same. The order passed by CIC on December 31, 2021 stated that I must get the requested information in 3 weeks, and it has been a month, and no information has been provided despite passing order against CPIO. I am not sure how many beaurocratic steps I must take to get justice. Complaint filed no resolution, 2nd Appeal filed no resolution and I am sure when I file the second appeal for this new RTI it would take another 3 years. Where is justice in India, its been already 38 long years for this matter. Do something about it please. I did not get the requested information and therefore I am filing first appeal under the RTI act 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