| SNo. | Registration No | Appellate Authority Name | Received date | Reply Appeal | Reply Doc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1861 | CICOM/A/P/22/00007 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 28-01-2022 | 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/P/21/00639 के पà¥à¤°à¤¤à¤¿à¤‰à¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤° में केंदà¥à¤°à¥€à¤¯ जन सूचना अधिकारी 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 |
| 1862 | CICOM/A/P/22/00014 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 28-01-2022 | 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/P/21/00628 के पà¥à¤°à¤¤à¤¿à¤‰à¤¤à¥à¤¤à¤° में केंदà¥à¤°à¥€à¤¯ जन सूचना अधिकारी 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 |
| 1863 | CICOM/A/E/22/00043 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 28-01-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01190 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/21/01190 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. (1) Q-1 MY DESIRED ILLEGALLY INSERTED REPLY OF CPIO DT 2-12-2019 IS MISSING IN THE FILE SENT BY LEARNED CPIO RECEIVED TODAY on the basis of which my complaint was dismissed DESPITE ABSENCE OF ALL THREE RESPONDENTS as cited in the subject of my application. FAA is requested to disclose illegally inserted two years backdated reply of CPIO resulting in dismissal of my complaint. (2) Q-2 Learned CPIO has failed to justify in detail about applicability of exemption under section 8(1)(j) . Illegal inserting of two years backdated reply of CPIO as well as denying of such reply in my rti application 17 days after receipt on the hearing date necessitate disclosure of information resulting in dismissal of my complaint WITHOUT PRESENCE OF ANY ONE OF THREE RESPONDENTS . THIS WILL reveal collusion of CIC with public authority and in larger public interest as in section 8(2) of RTI Act. (3) Q-3, 4 need disclosure in view of numerous complaints, second appeals decided within few weeks, months rather than two years routine waiting period necessitating disclosure of socalled precedence rule adopted by CIC . My complaint is related to compliance of supreme court committee of road safety directions which is matter of utmost public interest and very badly suppressed for two years needing disclosure to know public interest defined by CIC in early disposals of complaints, second appeals. 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 |
| 1864 | CICOM/A/E/22/00045 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 28-01-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01189/2 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/21/01189/2 CPIO name not disclosed in the online reply. Q-2,3 of current status of link papers after one month of decision are still mystry and need disclosure whereas learned CPIO has declared it to be under process without disclosing stage of process of link paper after more than one month of the decision. 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. 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. In the instant case, the CPIO IC-SP has replied in RTI application No. CICOM/R/E/21/01189/1 for Point 1 & Point 2 and CPIO IC-UM has replied in RTI application No. CICOM/R/E/21/01189/2 for Point 3. 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 |
| 1865 | CICOM/A/E/22/00047 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 28-01-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01219/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/21/01219/1 learned CPIO Mr V.B. Hariharan has given entirely vague abstract reply by entirely omitting my query of application as usual in previous replies by him in delinquent manner. Moreover, he has copy pasted reply of another different application CICOM/R/E/21/01216 which is also showing my specific previous reply of CIC displaying complete address in addition to name and presented it to be reply of current application. NAME OF APPLICANT NEEDS DISCLOSURE AS IN ALL PROCEEDINGS LIKE ONLINE FIR, COURT PROCEEDING (UNLESS PROHIBITED UNDER LAW LIKE RAPE VICTIMS, POCSO VICTIMS ETC.) But CIC has been illegally omitting even names of applicant from the uploaded reply as well as deliberately omitting query asked by him badly defeating the purpose of section 4(2) as well as DoPT circulars of 2013,2019 for dissemination of information to 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 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 |
| 1866 | CICOM/A/E/22/00044 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 28-01-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01189/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/21/01189/1 Learned CPIO has given information of attachment of only one link paper of Q-3 and omitted reply of status of link paper Q-2. Current status of even Q-3 still not known after more than one month of decision needing disclosure in view of illegal insertion of two years backdated reply of CPIO , denial to access illegally inserted reply in rti by Dy Registrar and CIC playing role of three absent respondents. 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. 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. In the instant case, the CPIO IC-SP has replied in RTI application No. CICOM/R/E/21/01189/1 for Point 1 & Point 2 and CPIO IC-UM has replied in RTI application No. CICOM/R/E/21/01189/2 for Point 3. 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 |
| 1867 | CICOM/A/E/22/00048 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 28-01-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01216 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/21/01216 learned CPIO Mr V.B. Hariharan has given entirely vague abstract reply by entirely omitting my query of application as usual in previous replies by him in delinquent manner. Moreover, he has copy pasted reply of another different application CICOM/R/E/21/01219/1 which is not showing my specific previous reply of CIC as this application displaying complete address in addition to name and presented it to be reply of current application. NAME OF APPLICANT NEEDS DISCLOSURE AS IN ALL PROCEEDINGS LIKE ONLINE FIR, COURT PROCEEDING (UNLESS PROHIBITED UNDER LAW LIKE RAPE VICTIMS, POCSO VICTIMS ETC.) But CIC has been illegally omitting even names of applicant from the uploaded reply as well as deliberately omitting query asked by him badly defeating the purpose of section 4(2) as well as DoPT circulars of 2013,2019 for dissemination of information to 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 RTI first appeal disposal in ENTIRE INDIA. 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 |
| 1868 | CICOM/A/E/22/00039 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 28-01-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01115 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/21/01115 (1) Learned CPIO on telephone refused to provide my lost complaint copy under section 18 of RTI act TO DELIBERATELY HIDE access to all documents of my own case including respondents fake inserted reply. Following facts prove entirely malafied intention of CPIO to refuse information in the garb of entirely irrelevant Madras highcourt judgment. (2) Madras highcourt judgment meant for emailed complaints to the highcourt rather than properly registered writ petitions which are always accessible in the ecourts under E-filing system. Similarly , my properly submitted complaint under section 18 must have been accessible under E-filing system of ecourts or alternatively in RTI act. (3) Learned CPIO refused two weeks prior to my hearing date about his malafied intention of refusal in the garb of Madras highcourt judgment which is entirely irrelevant in disclosure of properly submitted complaints necessitating suomotu disclosure by restoration of efiling system like in ecourts. (4) Learned CPIO failed to prove applicability of his excessively abused Madras highcourt judgment in refusing of properly submitted complaints under section 18 as in the this reply. (5) No pointwise reply given by learned CPIO which is in violation of numerous highcourt judgments as well as section 19(5) necessitating CPIO to give detailed justification of refusal as providing information is the rule and stopping is exception (as malafied stopping of information by learned CPIO to support corrupt public authorities from revelation of misconduct for selfish gains. (6) Refusal was made by learned CPIO after illegally sitting over 17 days on my application exactly on the date of my three hearings to illegally deprive me from properly presenting my case. (7) Due to such illegal refusal, I could not submit my rejoinder due to entirely fake reply inserted in the hearing notice of CIC/NHAIN/C/2020/600883 socalled 2-12-2019 . To know such socalled secret reply received by CIC office in two years back date, I filed this RTI application. LEARNED CPIO succeeded in hiding such illegally inserted reply of public authority for his selfish gains which needs disciplinary action against him. (8) As this matter of illegal inserting of date of reply by registry section and refusing in the garb of entirely irrelevant Madras highcourt judgment is not tenable under any law. (9) No section of Indian evidence act permits relevancy of such irrelevant madras highcourt judgment to deny properly submitted second appeals, complaints under RTI Act as illegally refused by learned CPIO. (10) Such malpractice of denying access to complaints second appeals under RTI act needs detailed investigation of Dy Registrar for his illegal gains from public authorities . (11) Ultimately , my complaint CIC/NHAIN/C/2020/600883 was dismissed illegally despite illegal inserting non-existant reply in the complaint notice despite no presence of any one of three respondents. 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 23.12.2021. 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 |
| 1869 | CICOM/A/E/22/00042 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 28-01-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01167 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/21/01167 (1) Entirely false and malafied reply by learned CPIO 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. (2) It is in public domain that IC used to deliver rti lectures preferably to CPIOs in the last 16 years and my information Is pertaining to such rti lectures. (3) In view of recent (a) illegal inserting of two years old reply of CPIO in the complaint notice CIC/NHAIN/C/2020/600883 socalled 2-12-2019 reply of CPIO (b) suomotu as well as unde RTI refusal to access to two years old online complaint filed with respondent replies as in EFILING SYSTEM OF E COURTS permitting parties to access their documents and (c) dismissal of my complaint CIC/NHAIN/C/2020/600883 under section 18 without even presence of any one of three respondents , IT HAS BECOME NECESSARY FOR DISCLOSURE OF SUCH RTI LECTURES OF ICs AND RELATED INFORMATION FOR TRANSPARENCY. (4) FAA is requested to disclose my grounds of appeal in this uploaded first appeal decisions 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 |
| 1870 | CICOM/A/E/22/00046 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 28-01-2022 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01219/2 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/21/01219/2 Learned CPIO Mr Devender Kumar has in delinquent manner as usual in previous replies without any jurisdiction deliberately omitted reply of Q-1,3 without giving any reasons without bothering to timely transfer to relevant authority within five days of receipt of application. 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. 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 uplaoded 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. 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 |