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
1871 CICOM/A/E/22/00038 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01200 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating the following: 1) For Point 1 -The reply of CPIO is entirely differing from the information sought. As such applicant sought very specific information. No opinion/clarification asked on the relevant Rules/Law. If any Rules/Law is available, the same should be made available by the concerned CPIO 2) For Point 2 -The reply of CPIO that no such minutes available on record, is denial of information. Further opinion of CPIO on the matter is beyond his jurisdiction. 3) For Point 3 - The reply of CPIO that no such records available on the file, is denial of information, because all the records were filed through commission website and available on record. Further opinion of CPIO on the matter is beyond his jurisdiction 4) For Point 4 -The reply of CPIO is denial of information; CPIO offered his comments instead providing records. Further opinion of CPIO on the matter is beyond his jurisdiction 5) For Point 5 -The reply of CPIO is denial of information, because information sought by applicant is very specific and it has nothing to do with the RTI Act. As far any other rules or law is concern it was for the CPIO to provide the same as information under RTI Act 2005 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
1872 CICOM/A/E/22/00036 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01232 The Appellant submitted first appeal stating: Ground of Apeal With Refrence to folio number provided by company to sebi VMC0000317 on year 1995 which was already examined by sebi shares was alloted to S Harban Singh and updated by sebi To CIC Dated 1St june 2020 In name of Harban Singh Sahni Furher it is, clear sebi has a, record of it but denied 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
1873 CICOM/A/E/22/00035 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01178 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CPIO RTI CELL - Shri SUBODH KUMAR disposed the RTI request by transferring to CPIOs who disposed request without providing information i.e. Shri Grover writes for point no B (i) Information is not available in the registry of IC (HS), Shri Sharma attaches a response received from Shri Talwar ,Shri ASSIJA writes No e-mail has been sent to the respondent after registration of Appeal/Complaint, Shri Talwar transfers RTI request to CPIO & SO(MR) stating that information sought vide Part B of request is with CPIO & SO(MR) and Shri Joseph writes for Part A query 1 and 2 - system generated messages/emails ,if any ,sent through the AppCoMS is not accessible to him, for Part B, Point (v) is No e-mail has been sent to the respondent after registration of Appeal/Complaint and his Part B, Point (vi) response is misleading because not related to query. Shri Devender Kumar reply to point B is -No such provision (sent any sort of email to anyone. whether it be the appellant or the respondent more specifically after Registration of any of the Appeal/Complaint) exist in the AppCoMS, the software of the Commission. Grounds of Appeal 1 CPIO RTI CELL disposed the RTI i. by transferring it to the CPIOs, who are not custodians of the information sought in the RTI application without seeking help u/s 5(4) from the CIC officials who have the information i.e. Shri Grover - CICOM/R/E/21/01178/1, Shri SHARMA- CICOM/R/E/21/01178/2, Shri ASSIJA - CICOM/R/E/21/01178/3 and Shri Talwar -CICOM/R/E/21/01178/4 ii. has not provided information sought in part A query 3. 2 Shri Tarun Kumar and Shri Prakash has not responded to the parts transferred to them i.e. CICOM/R/E/21/01178/1 Part B, Point (i) and CICOM/R/E/21/01178/4 Part B, Point (ii) as per transfer online application 3 Shri Joseph/ Shri Talwar write -they have no access to system generated messages/emails. 4 Either Shri Talwar or Shri Devender Kumar is misleading 5 Response of the office sending emails/messages from email id –no-reply.at the rate.nic.in / VD-CICIND has not been sought by any of the responding CPIOs u/s 5(4). 6 Shri Devender Kumar reply seems to be false. Pl see attached emails/messages received by Appellant 1st AA is requested to direct CPIO Shri SUBODH KUMAR to send the RTI request to office responsible for sending the system generated emails/messages from email id –no-reply. at the rate. nic.in/ VD-CICIND so that Appellant gets requested information. The 1st AA is also requested to fix a hearing of this 1st Appeal if he is of the opinion that there is no need to interfere with the CPIOs responses and to direct the concerned CIC official to take steps so that documents/records are retained till disposal of 2nd Appeal/ complaint u/s 18 if the need so arises due to decision of 1st Appellate Authority and its implementation In view of CIC document retention policy of 6 months, as communicated by Shri Subodh Kumar vide letter CICOM/R/E/21/00558 dated 09-09-2021. DECISION OF 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. The reply given by the CPIOs is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 except Part A query 3 of the RTI Application. In the instant case, CPIO (RTI Cell) is directed to revisit the RTI application and transfer it to the concerned CPIO to provide information to the Appellant for Part A query 3 by 28/02/2022. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1874 CICOM/A/E/22/00032 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 21-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/00803 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating: 21.1.22 To, The FAA- CIC Subject: First Appeal u/s 19(1) Dear Sir/Madam, 1. PIO has disposed RTI online and did not provide certified copy of reply. Reliefs Sought: 1. Kindly issue the necessary directions to provide point-wise reply without any further delay free of cost u/s 7(6). 2. Personal hearing must be conducted in the interest of natural justice prior to disposal of my first appeals as per strictures passed in Case No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/604069, CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/637782, CIC/DEPOL/C/2019/660680, & CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/667032 in the matter of Varun Krishna V.s PIO, Delhi Police, East District. 3. Strictures must be passed against PIO. Regards, Varun Krishna MS-University of North Dakota, USA 213 Gobind Appts, B-2 Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi-110096 PS: Delay if any may please be condoned as the appellant was waiting for the hard copy of reply which PIO must have ignored/overlooked due to COVID. 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 01.10.2021. 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
1875 CICOM/A/E/22/00031 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 21-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/00804 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating: 21.1.22 To, The FAA- CIC Subject: First Appeal u/s 19(1) Dear Sir/Madam, 1. PIO has disposed RTI online and did not provide certified copy of reply. Reliefs Sought: 1. Kindly issue the necessary directions to provide point-wise reply without any further delay free of cost u/s 7(6). 2. Personal hearing must be conducted in the interest of natural justice prior to disposal of my first appeals as per strictures passed in Case No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/604069, CIC/DEPOL/A/2019/637782, CIC/DEPOL/C/2019/660680, & CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/667032 in the matter of Varun Krishna V.s PIO, Delhi Police, East District. 3. Strictures must be passed against PIO. Regards, Varun Krishna MS-University of North Dakota, USA 213 Gobind Appts, B-2 Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi-110096 PS: Delay if any may please be condoned as the appellant was waiting for the hard copy of reply which PIO must have ignored/overlooked due to COVID. 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 01.10.2021. 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
1876 CICOM/A/E/22/00033 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 21-01-2022 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/22/00008/1 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
1877 CICOM/A/E/22/00028 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/22/00008 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating: 20.01.2022 CICOM FIRST APPEAL Sir/Madam, FACTS: On 10.01.2022 : RTI Request filed as follows: Final Status of DOCAF/R/E/22/00015 Applicant Name BAIDYANATH SEN Date of receipt 10/01/2022 Request Filed With Department of Consumer Affairs Text of Application 10.01.2022 Department of Consumer Affairs Sir/Madam, Please provide information under the RTI Act, 2005. During the period from 01.01.2021 to 31.12.2021 Central Information Commission (CIC) has warned/issued show cause NOTICE only or imposed penalty to CPIO or Public Authority by decision of Information Commissioner as follows: CIC File/Decision No. and Date Remarks (if any) With regard to above, please provide information on record from the concerned department only. Status REQUEST TRANSFERRED TO OTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITY as on 18/01/2022 Date of Action 18/01/2022 Remarks Details of Public Autority :- Central Information Commission. vide registration number :- CICOM/R/T/22/00008 respectively. Note:- Further details will be available on viewing the status of the above-mentioned new request registration number. On 18.01.2022 : RTI Request transferred as follows: Final Status of CICOM/R/T/22/00008 Applicant Name BAIDYANATH SEN Date of receipt 18/01/2022 Request Filed With Central Information Commission Text of Application 10.01.2022 Department of Consumer Affairs Sir/Madam, Please provide information under the RTI Act, 2005. During the period from 01.01.2021 to 31.12.2021 Central Information Commission (CIC) has warned/issued show cause NOTICE only or imposed penalty to CPIO or Public Authority by decision of Information Commissioner as follows: CIC File/Decision No. and Date Remarks (if any) With regard to above, please provide information on record from the concerned department only. Status REQUEST DISPOSED OF as on 20/01/2022 Date of Action 20/01/2022 Remarks Reply :- information provided Grounds : I would like to bring to your notice that CPIO has replied vide letter dated 20.01.2022 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 Consumer Affairs only which was transferred from them, but CPIO could transfer back to them also. 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 0 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 Consumer Affairs on 18.01.2022 with RTI No. DOCAF/R/E/22/00015 and on 19.01.2022 the RTI was transferred to CIC with RTI No. CICOM/R/T/22/00008. On 20.01.2022 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
1878 CICOM/A/E/22/00026 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-01-2022 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/22/00007 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
1879 CICOM/A/E/22/00027 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/22/00006 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating: Grounds : I would like to bring to your notice that CPIO has replied vide letter dated 19.01.2022 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 Food & Public Distribution only which was transferred from them, but CPIO could transfer back to them also. 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 Food and Public Distribution on 13.01.2022 with RTI No. DOFPD/R/E/22/00026/24 and on 14.01.2022 the RTI was transferred to CIC with RTI No. CICOM/R/T/22/00006. On 20.01.2022 CPIO CR-II provided 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
1880 CICOM/A/E/22/00029 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/22/00007 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating: 20.01.2022 CICOM FIRST APPEAL Sir/Madam, FACTS: On 15.01.2022 : RTI Request filed as follows: Final Status of DARPG/R/E/21/01284 Applicant Name BAIDYANATH SEN Date of receipt 15/01/2022 Request Filed With Department of Administrative Reforms & PG Text of Application 15.01.2022 Department of Administrative Reforms & PG Sir/Madam, Please provide information under the RTI Act, 2005. During the period from 01.01.2010 to 31.12.2021 Central Information Commission (CIC) has warned/issued show cause NOTICE only or imposed penalty to CPIO or Public Authority of Department of Administrative Reforms & PG by decision of Information Commissioner as follows: CIC File/Decision No. and Date Remarks (if any) With regard to above, please provide information on record from the concerned department only. Status REQUEST TRANSFERRED TO OTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITY as on 18/01/2022 Date of Action 18/01/2022 Remarks Details of Public Autority :- Central Information Commission. vide registration number :- CICOM/R/T/22/00007 respectively. Note:- Further details will be available on viewing the status of the above-mentioned new request registration number. On 18.01.2022 : RTI Request transferred as follows: Final Status of CICOM/R/T/22/00007 Applicant Name BAIDYANATH SEN Date of receipt 18/01/2022 Request Filed With Central Information Commission Text of Application 15.01.2022 Status REQUEST DISPOSED OF as on 20/01/2022 Date of Action 20/01/2022 Remarks Reply :- information provided Grounds : I would like to bring to your notice that CPIO has replied vide letter dated 20.01.2022 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 Administrative Reforms & PG only which was transferred from them, but CPIO could transfer back to them also. 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 Administrative Reforms & PG on 18.01.2022 with RTI No. DARPG/R/E/21/01284 and on 19.01.2022 the RTI was transferred to CIC with RTI No. CICOM/R/T/22/00007. On 20.01.2022 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