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
1851 CICOM/A/E/22/00041 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-01-2022 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/21/01074 के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रेषित की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों एवं मांगी गई सूचना के अनुसार नहीं है। अतः 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 पंद्रह दिन के भीतर आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/01074 तहत बिंदु संख्या 1, 2, एवं 4 में मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पुनः स्पष्ट सूचना प्रेषित की जाये। NA
1852 CICOM/A/P/22/00005 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/21/00637/3 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant in the first appeal states that CPIO IC(SP) has not provided information for other points except Point 4(6) and the signed copy provided by the CPIO is of unsigned order no. CIC/WB/ A/2007/00770 dated 14.11.2008. 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 CPIO(IC-SP) has provided information for Point 4(6) as the CPIO(IC-SP) was only liable to provide information for Point 4(6) of the RTI application, as assistance was sought u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act, 2005 for the same point only by the CPIO (RTI Cell). Furthermore, for the rest of the points the CPIO (RTI Cell) has provided information on 10.01.2022 within the prescribed period as per RTI Act, 2005 and the appellant has made First Appeal before receiving the reply of CPIO (RTI Cell). Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1853 CICOM/A/P/22/00006 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/21/00622 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant in the first appeal states that CPIO has provided a copy of the said affidavit but it is not certified and requests for certified copy of the affidavit. 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. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1854 CICOM/A/P/22/00008 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-01-2022 आर. टी. आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/21/00613 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। NA
1855 CICOM/A/P/22/00009 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-01-2022 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/21/00542 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। NA
1856 CICOM/A/P/22/00010 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/21/00599 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant in the first appeal application has not mentioned any substantial grounds and states the details of documents required – L.I.C. Agent, 173-63H Venkatesh G., Agency year earnings from- 9/1986-87, to 2005, that is no. of lives, 5A, FPI – renewal commission. 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 reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1857 CICOM/A/P/22/00011 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-01-2022 आर. टी. आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/21/00607 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
1858 CICOM/A/P/22/00012 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-01-2022 आर. टी. आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. 43951/08.12.2021/RTI Cell 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। NA
1859 CICOM/A/P/22/00013 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-01-2022 आर. टी. आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/21/00627 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। NA
1860 CICOM/A/E/22/00040 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01199 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/21/01199 FOR PUBLICATION WITH MY NAME , DESIRED QUERY (always omitted malafiedly in the replies and first appeal decisions to hide misconduct of cic needing revelation) AND GROUNDS OF FIRST APPEAL RATHER THAN MEANINGLESS DISPOSAL BY FAA VIOLATING SECTION 4(2) OF RTI ACT TO MINIMIZE RTI USE BY THE CITIZENS AS WELL AS BADLY FLOUTING DOPT CIRCULARS OF 2013,2019 BY FAA IN ADDITION TO BADLY DISOBEYING SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS OF TREATING FIRST APPEAL TO BE QUASI-JUDICIAL NEEDING DETAILED REASONS. (1) Till date on cic website , only one reply by delinquent CPIO Mr Devender Kumar available. But to suppress revelation of misconduct of CIC , most of my applications are being marked to Mr Devender kumar which proves malafied intention of cic to hide extreme misconduct in working. (2) As usual, again this reply sent by entirely irrelevant and delinquent CPIO of CIC blindly copy pasting every reply to be NOT AVAILABLE IN OUR RECORD irrespective of his jurisdiction without bothering to read the content of application which can be proved as following needing severe disciplinary action against such delinquent CPIO (3) Q-1, 2,3 IT agency has been hired by CIC as found on browsing. So its agreement must be in public domain revealing its responsibilities to identify malafied refusal to visit ones own second appeals , complaints CONTRARY TO EFILING SYSTEM OF ECOURTS. (4) As Efiling system of courts permits full access to the concerned parties to access their documents to enable them to timely submit their rejoinders . On the contrary, CPIO in collusion with public authorities denying access to online filed second appeals, complaints under RTI Act. (5) My three online complaints on 23-12-2021 has been dismissed due to refusal to access my own online submitted complaints and replies suomotu under IT system of Efiling of cic needing disclosure of malafied directions of cic to its IT agency to refuse access to applicants own record with public authorities replies till hearing . (6) Esp. CIC/NHAIN/C/2020/600883 hearing of 23-12-2021 took place by illegally representation by cic as respondent by illegally inserting two years backdate reply of CPIO. So IT agency agreement needs disclosure in wide public interest as well as malafied dismissal of my complaint in absence of three respondents deliberately by illegally inserting two years backdated reply to condone them. (7) FAA is requested to deliver pointwise decision preferably by conducting hearing rather than blindly concurring with CPIO reply as usual by MAKING CIC TO BE BIGGEST OFFENDER OF 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