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
1841 CICOM/A/E/22/00058 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 31-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/22/00009 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating: 31.01.2022 CICOM FIRST APPEAL Sir/Madam, FACTS: On 11.01.2022 : RTI Request filed as follows: Registration Number DOA&C/R/E/22/00066 Name BAIDYANATH SEN Received Date 11/01/2022 Public Authority Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare Status REQUEST TRANSFERRED TO OTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITY Date of action 24/01/2022 Details of Public Autority :- Central Information Commission. vide registration number :- CICOM/R/T/22/00009 respectively. Note:- Further details will be available on viewing the status of the above-mentioned new request registration number. View Status of CICOM/R/T/22/00009 On 24.01.2022 : RTI Request transferred as follows: Registration Number CICOM/R/T/22/00009 Name BAIDYANATH SEN Received Date 24/01/2022 Public Authority Central Information Commission Status REQUEST DISPOSED OF Date of action 31/01/2022 Reply :- information provided View Document CPIO Details :- Central Registry - II -- AMITA CHAUHAN Grounds : I would like to bring to your notice that CPIO has replied vide letter dated 31.01.2022 without having provided sought for information from the concerned department which was clearly mentioned with the RTI Request, copy enclosed for your ready reference. It is also mentioned that sought for information is pertaining to Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare only which was transferred from them. In this regard I would like to bring to your notice again that similar RTI Request was transferred from Department of Posts and thethen CPIO returned back to them vide reply dated 08.09.2020, copy enclosed for your ready reference. With regard to above context, it is observed that CPIO without having thoroughly examined the RTI Request, given reply without sought for information to the appellant. APPEAL: Appellate Authority are requested to intervene the matter having thoroughly examined the present appeal with direction to CPIO to transfer the RTI Request to them from whom the said RTI Request has received immediately as earlier CPIO transferred vide reply dated 08.09.2020, copy enclosed. A copy of reply may please be forwarded to appellant also. Yours faithfully, PS: Please find attached for your ready reference. 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 information once published in public domain may not be treated as information held by a particular public authority. In the instant case, the RTI Application was originally file with Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare on 24.01.2022 with RTI No. DOA&C/R/E/21/00066 and on 25.01.2022 the RTI was transferred to CIC with RTI No. CICOM/R/T/22/00009. On 31.01.2022 CPIO CR-II provided the information as per records. 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
1842 CICOM/A/E/22/00059 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 31-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/22/00010 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating: 31.01.2022 CICOM FIRST APPEAL Sir/Madam, FACTS: On 27.01.2022 : RTI Request filed as follows: Registration Number MORLY/R/E/22/00358 Name BAIDYANATH SEN Received Date 27/01/2022 Public Authority Ministry of Railways Status REQUEST FORWARDED TO CPIO(s) AND TRANSFERRED TO OTHER PUBLIC AUTHORY(s) Date of action 27/01/2022 Details of CPIO :- Name:-Dy. Director- RTI Cell, Telephone Number:- 01123047392, Email Id:- cpiorti@rb.railnet.gov.in Your RTI application has been forwarded to multiple Public Authory(s) Click here to view details Status of RTI Request S.No. Registration Number Name of Public Authory Current Status Status Date Remarks 1 CICOM/R/T/22/00010 Central Information Commission REQUEST DISPOSED OF 31/01/22 information provided Grounds : I would like to bring to your notice that CPIO has replied vide letter dated 31.01.2022 without having provided sought for information from the concerned department which was clearly mentioned with the RTI Request, copy enclosed for your ready reference. It is also mentioned that sought for information is pertaining to Ministry of Railways only. In this regard I would like to bring to your notice again that similar RTI Request was transferred from Department of Posts and thethen CPIO returned back to them vide reply dated 08.09.2020, copy enclosed for your ready reference. With regard to above context, it is observed that CPIO without having thoroughly examined the RTI Request, given reply without sought for information to the appellant. APPEAL: Appellate Authority are requested to intervene the matter having thoroughly examined the present appeal with direction to CPIO to transfer the RTI Request to them from whom the said RTI Request has received immediately as earlier CPIO transferred vide reply dated 08.09.2020, copy enclosed. A copy of reply may please be forwarded to appellant also. Yours faithfully, PS: Please find attached for your ready reference. 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 information once published in public domain may not be treated as information held by a particular public authority. In the instant case, the RTI Application was originally file with Ministry of Railways on 27.01.2022 with RTI No. MORLY/R/E/22/00358 and on 27.01.2022 the RTI was transferred to CIC with RTI No. CICOM/R/T/22/00010. On 31.01.2022 CPIO CR-II provided the information as per records. 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
1843 CICOM/A/E/22/00057 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 31-01-2022 ऑनलाइन आर. टी. आई, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/01187 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।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
1844 CICOM/A/E/22/00053 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01113 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/21/01113 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 Q-1 Despite sending previous reply of Mr Amit Tiwari with my application, learned CPIO denied to have any record with cic in delinquent manner as usual in all previous replies. FAA is requested to please disclose notesheets of reply ILLEGALLY PROHIBITING CONCERNED PARTIES TO ACCESS THEIR ONLINE SECOND APPEAL, COMPLAINTS UNLIKE EFILING SYSTEM OF ECOURTS. Such illegal misconduct of CIC needs disclosure in wide public interest in view of illegal dismissal of my three complaints hearing on 23-12-2021 due to denial of accessing my own documents despite absence of three respondents, illegal insertion of non existing reply in two years back date by CIC registry .Thus FAA is requested to disclose complete notehseets as desired in my application for illegally prohibiting concerned parties to access their documents prior to hearing. (2) In another application illegally forwarded by DoPT to cic having no concern no jurisdiction no record in custody with the information, learned CPIO disposed in delinquent manner again much abused sentence as usual . Such illegal misconduct of Mr Devender Kumar of replying other public authority query is highly shameful and condemnable but always being condoned by FAA by blindly concurring with CPIO . Despite only one rti reply on cic website displayed, my entire applications are being illegally replied by delinquent CPIO Mr Devender Kumar without any jurisdiction without being custodian of record by copy pasting most abused sentence NO SUCH NOTESHEET RECORD CREATED MAINTAINED. Such shameful misconduct has always been condoned by FAA by blindly concurring with such delinquent reply badly affecting entire citizens of india. 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 Appellant has submitted the first appeal after 30 days of receipt of reply of the CPIO i.e. reply dated 21.12.2021. 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
1845 CICOM/A/E/22/00054 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/21/00066 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/t/21/00066 (illegally disposed by delinquent CPIO as usual without any jurisdiction without any record in custody transferred illegally from another public authority without disclosing in the reply about transferring authority) 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 Q-1 Despite sending previous reply of DoPT with my application, learned CPIO denied to have any record with cic in delinquent manner as usual in all previous replies. Such conduct of CPIO of illegal disposal by advocating another public authority without any record in custody without any jurisdiction is highly condemnable and needs strict disciplinary action .FAA is requested to please disclose notesheets of reply ILLEGALLY PROHIBITING CONCERNED PARTIES TO ACCESS THEIR ONLINE SECOND APPEAL, COMPLAINTS UNLIKE EFILING SYSTEM OF ECOURTS. Such illegal misconduct of CIC needs disclosure in wide public interest in view of illegal dismissal of my three complaints hearing on 23-12-2021 due to denial of accessing my own documents despite absence of three respondents, illegal insertion of non existing reply in two years back date by CIC registry .Thus FAA is requested to disclose complete notehseets as desired in my application for illegally prohibiting concerned parties to access their documents prior to hearing. (2) In another application illegally forwarded by DoPT to cic having no concern no jurisdiction no record in custody with the information, learned CPIO disposed in delinquent manner again much abused sentence as usual . Such illegal misconduct of Mr Devender Kumar of replying other public authority query is highly shameful and condemnable but always being condoned by FAA by blindly concurring with CPIO . Despite only one rti reply on cic website displayed, my entire applications are being illegally replied by delinquent CPIO Mr Devender Kumar without any jurisdiction without being custodian of record by copy pasting most abused sentence NO SUCH NOTESHEET RECORD CREATED MAINTAINED. Such shameful misconduct has always been condoned by FAA by blindly concurring with such delinquent reply badly affecting entire citizens of india. 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 Appellant has submitted the first appeal after 30 days of receipt of reply of the CPIO i.e. reply dated 21.12.2021. 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
1846 CICOM/A/E/22/00051 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01217 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/21/01217 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 It is worth mentioning that Mr Devender kumar has only one uploaded rti reply on the cic website and presently most of the applications are being replied by him without any jurisdiction without bothering to mention query asked in the vague meaningless reply upheld by FAA also in all previous first appeals decisions. (1) Q-1 Learned CPIO delinquent reply as usual denied any role in uploading payment link on the portal WHEREAS EVERY PUBLIC AUTHORITY IS EMPOWERED TO UPLOAD PAYMENT TO AVOID IPO, DEMAND DRAFT as in vague reply of CPIO . Such delinquent reply of CPIO from CIC badly affecting entire india is highly condemnable. (2) Copy of flowchart is also attached on the basis of user guide of rtionline portal on the basis of which any public authority can receive further fees payment by uploading payment link. FAA is requested to take action against repeatedly delinquent replies of CPIO Mr Devender Kumar in view of clear flowchart attached for uploading of payment link by any CPIO of India . On the contrary, CIC CPIO denying awareness of uploading of payment link on the portal . (3) Q-2 No clear relevant reply given by delinquent CPIO as usual by habitually copy pasting vague sentence in every query NO SUCH INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD without applying mind without bothering to read the content BADLY AFFECTING ENTIRE CITIZENS OF INDIA. 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. 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. 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
1847 CICOM/A/E/22/00052 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-01-2022 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/21/01172 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
1848 CICOM/A/E/22/00055 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/21/00069 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/T/21/00069 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 (1) As usual , learned CPIO has disposed application of another public authority without disclosing transferring public authority WITHOUT ANY JURISDICTION, WITHOUT ANY RECORD IN CUSTODY IN ILLEGAL MANNER. (2) Such illegal advocating of other public authority by outright dismissal with much abused sentence NO SUCH INFORMAITON IS AVAILABLE IN THIS SECTION needs severe action by illegally deprieving citizens from their desired information badly affecting entire india by such CPIO. (3) Learned CPIO has badly hidden desired query for uploading on cic website TO HIDE EXTREME MISCONDUCT OF CIC (4) In addition to misconduct of CIC in uploading vague reply without disclosure of any query, applicant name is also hidden (which hidden only in case of rape, pocso victims in any court proceedings). Such illegal misconduct by learned CPIO Mr Hariharan is highly condemnable and deserves strict action. 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. 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 Appellant has submitted the first appeal after 30 days of receipt of reply of the CPIO i.e. reply dated 24.12.2021. 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
1849 CICOM/A/E/22/00049 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01196 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/21/01196 FIRST APPEAL WITH REQUEST TO UPLOAD on cic website YOUR DECISION WITH MY QUERY, GROUNDS OF APPEAL always omitted badly flouting section 4(2) and DoPT circulars of 2013,2019 of maximum dissemination of information. 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. 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. THUS 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. You are requested to please deliver pointwise first appeal disposal with following grounds of this appeal in quasi-judicial manner as mandated in numerous supreme court judgments. (1) Q-1, 5 Learned CPIO has illegally equated digitized record with paper record as in Q-1 having preservation period of six months only. Nowhere in 8 sheets, preservation period of digitized record has been defined. FAA is requested to DISCLOSE PRESERVATION PERIOD OF DIGITIZED RECORD OF DISPOSED CASES. (2) Q- 2,3 No reply given by learned CPIO in delinquent manner by merely citing no comments on flouting of public records act 1993, public record rules 1997 by CIC in the last 16 years. FAA is requested to disclose compliance of public records act , rules by keeping very poor preservation period of merely six months TO HIDE CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES needing disclosure in wide public interest under section 8(2) by illegally keeping silence over preservation period of digitized record . (3) In 8 sheets of Q-1, there is confusion over digitized record in pdf whether searchable pdf or read only pdf . FAA IS REQUESTED TO DISCLOSE THE FORMAT OF DIGITIZED RECORD IN SEARCHABLE OR READ ONLY FORMAT .CIRCULAR OF CIC DT 20-7-2016 PARA (I) CITING KEEPING READ ONLY FORMAT WHEREAS NOTESHEET OF ITS PREVIOUS DAY 19-7-2016 APPROVING SEARCHABLE PDF 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
1850 CICOM/A/E/22/00050 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01218 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/21/01218 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 It is worth mentioning that Mr Devender kumar has only one uploaded rti reply on the cic website and presently most of the applications are being replied by him without any jurisdiction without bothering to mention query asked in the vague meaningless reply upheld by FAA also in all previous first appeals decisions. (1) Q-1,2,3 All queries has been deliberately hidden by learned CPIO needing disclosure in uploaded replies on the cic website. FAA is requested to upload this vague reply of CPIO alongwith my query on the cic website showing my name also which is disclosed in all court proceedings (except rape ,pocso victims etc.) (2) Q-1 There must have been schedule of publication of annual reports of cic in view of mandatory submission to the parliament. Even tentative schedule could be given by learned CPIO. FAA is requested to provide schedule or exemption from schedule of publication as well as date of publication of pending last year annual report which learned cpio has cited to have sent to DoPT. (3) Q-3 actual date of publication of annual reports of last three years needs disclosure in view of entirely defeating transparency mandated in the preamble of RTI act.FAA is requested to disclose actual date of publication of annual reports of last three years or reasons of keeping such date secret be revealed in wide public interest. (4) Q-2 There must have been any page or any clue in the annual reports disclosing date of publication of annual reports as in all govt organizations not exempted under schedule-II of RTI act. FAA is requested to disclose the page on which date of publication of annual report is displayed. 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. 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. 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