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
1881 CICOM/A/E/22/00030 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01212 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating: Ground of Appeal unsatisfied with Reply of CPIO that 3000 shares information is not covered under RTI Act Annexure E whole part C of Sebi states that complaint file in sebi with refrence to 3000 Shares Dated 3rd,oct 2017 Ref SEBIP/AP17/0000189/1and as per information provided by sebi to CIC Appellant Has Recieved 3000 Shares but he had not recieved 3000 shares immediately on year 1995 but he had recieved shares after taking up with company on year 2014 which is clear sebi investigsted while disposing off case which was also communicated to CIC it s very clear by sebi with refrence to Gradiente infotainment ltd upon reciving the request from complaint of 3000 shares company had then alloted shares which is clean evidence 3000 shares was never alloted before or neither dispatched before by company further already sebi acknowledged to CIC complaint raised in Sebi in 2014 Document was already Annexed by sebi in Annexure E, and, also reply was recieved by Company Gradiente Infotainment ltd through Email Dated 29 May 2014 with refrence to 3000 shares will be dispatched in Next 15 Days and this document was submitted by sebi as an annexure E which is a. Public Document and comes on public record of CIC which proves that it was not preataining to ownership of Shares, and, Shares fraduently transfered as per record of CIC shares was transfered to mohammad Abdul Muqueet on year 2010 and furher information ask with refrence to 3000 shares of 2014 which was already acknowledged by sebi to CIC 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. 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
1882 CICOM/A/E/22/00024 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 19-01-2022 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/21/01155 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : Refusal of information by PIO from corruption in Central Information Commission clearly indicates that Central Information Commission becomes the factory of corruption and whose only duty is to protect corrupt people and torture citizens. PIO not only avoid to provide any information but intentionally avoid to protect his corrupt Information Commissioner and corrupt PIO who got protected from this corrupt information commissioner. In this way PIO violates RTI Act Based on above facts I am demanding following action from FAA 1) As per RTI Act disciplinary and departmental action must be taken on PIO. 2) As per RTI Act compensation to be provided to appellant from PIO for creating hurdles to get information. 3) Immediate information to be provided to PIO as requested. 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
1883 CICOM/A/E/22/00025 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 19-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01155/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : PIO refused to provide any information. PIO also mentioned on point 2, 9, 10 11 and 12 that A letter Dated 28.12.2021 has been sent to the respondent to ensure the compliance of the commission’s order and action taken be endorsed to commission within 15 days of receipt of the letter. PIO sent above letter on 28.12.2021 after receiving RTI from complainant on 15.12.2021. This clearly indicates that there is no any intention of CIC to comply their own order. PIO of CIC neglected the fact that fifteen days’ time limit granted to concerned PIO to comply the order but PIO avoid to respond it. PIO have full confidence that Information Commissioner protected him previously. So, same thing will happen again and appellant will do nothing against him because no one have dare to touch the corrupt information commissioner. Please note the below point;- 1) Information Commissioner released order on 24 March 2021 but FAA sent email to appellant on 2 June. Means PIO responded after 2 months from the date of order. 2) After receiving letter dated 28.12.2021 from CIC, PIO replied registry of National Commission received order copy of 24 March 2021 order on 29 April 2021. His this reply itself a question mark that either CIC intentionally sent order copy after one month or PIO is lying. Again PIO also gives bogus excuse of second wave of the Covid-19. 3) Though PIO provides wrong excuse of Covid-19 then also he accepted that Commission order received on 29 April 2021. Then what is the reason that he sent email on 2 June 2021. This point cannot be neglected that PIO sent email but not any letter and email is always in his access. It means he intentionally did it. 4) One more point to be noted on higher priority basis CIC rejected appellants one second appeal with Diary No. 663169/2021 because of no response from FAA. CIC gives reason that without waiting of 45 days from the date of filling first appeal appellant filed second appeal. In this matter Appellant filed first appeal on 16 November 2021 but receives no response from FAA. So, he filed second appeal on 29 December 2021. It means appellant files second appeal on exact 45 days from the date of first appeal 5) This fact to be considered on higher priority basis that CIC rejected second appeal because appellant files second appeal on 45 days from the first appeal. If CIC not able to consider this point then how they are allowing PIO to grant more time on their own order. It means money power work here to protect PIO. Based on above allegation appellant demanding following actions on both of them for violating RTI Act:- 1) As per RTI Act disciplinary and departmental action must be taken on both FAA and PIO. 2) As per RTI Act compensation to be provided to appellant from PIO for creating hurdles to get information. 3) Immediate information to be provided to PIO as requested. 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
1884 CICOM/A/E/22/00023 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 19-01-2022 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/22/00008 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
1885 CICOM/A/E/22/00022 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 19-01-2022 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/22/00008/2 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
1886 CICOM/A/E/22/00021 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 18-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01214 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating: Ground of Apeeal information was available with CIC Dated 23 RD Dec 2021 with refrence to information suplied by sebi to CIC against Gradiente infotainment ltd it does not preatains to ownership of Shares and Shares Fraduently transfered of Harbans Singh Sahni but information was non disclosed in RTI As, per Record, available in CIC and, Sebi on year 2010 shaes shares was transfered to Mohammad Abdul Muqeet As, per information and record provided by sebi with refrence to Gradiente infotainment ltd does not pretains to ownership, of Shares and, shares fraduently transfered of Harbans Singh Sahni With Refrence to our complaint was launched in sebi Dated 3/10/2017 with refrence to Gradiente infotainment ltd already sebi investiagted and conveyed to CIC Annexure E 3000 Shares was not recieved by company immediately on year 1995 but he received after taking up with company on year 2014 Further information provided by sebi as Annexure D part C clearly states that on year 2014 I had launched complaint in scores against Gradiente infotainment ltd Documents was enclosed by sebi as Annexure E Dated 29 May 2014 complaint Ref SEBIE / AP14/0000171/1 Was launched with refrence to 3000 shares Apply in VR Mathur Mass communication ltd Reply Received by company Email Dated 29 May 2014 was also enclosed by sebi as Document Annexure E to CIC Which stated 3000 Shares will be dispatched in next 15 Days further no information was provided by company with refrence to any ownership of shares and shares fraduently transfered or previously any shares was dispatched by company 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
1887 CICOM/A/E/22/00020 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 18-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01213 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating: Ground of Appeal Information is available with CIC with refrence to how many Shares was dispatched by company Gradiente Infotainment ltd and, when it was dispatched by company Gradiente Infotainment, ltd, is available, with CIC But information was denied Annexure E of Sebi Clearly states with refrence to our complaint launched Dated 3/10/2017 Ref SEBIP/AP17/0000189/1 which was also investigated and communicated to CIC against Gradiente Infotainment ltd Apellant has not Recieved 3000 Shares immediately on year 1995 But Recieved after taking up with the company on year 2014 { which clearly states, that 3000 shares was dispatched by Company on year 2014) Furher it has a, record in CIC information provided by Sebi to CIC in 2014 Complaint launched which is marked as Annexure D Part C Document was enclosed by sebi to CIC in Annexure E Complaint Ref Dated 29 May 2014 Ref SEBIE/AP14/0000171/1 Reply Recieved by company through email was also enclosed by sebi to CIC in Annexure With refrence to our complaint launched in scores with refrence to 3000 Shares will be dispatched in next 15 Days which is clean evidence only dispatched information was provided no other information was provided by Company Gradiente infotainment ltd which pretains to ownership of Shares and Shares fraduently transfered and comes on record of CIC 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
1888 CICOM/A/E/22/00019 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 16-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01209 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating: Ground of Appeal Since audio recording facility is not available information which was non disclosed by CIC and sebi has to be disclosed that it does not preatains to ownership of Shares and Shares fraduently transfered It has a record in CIC information provided by sebi to CIC On year 2010 3000 shares was transfered to one Mohamed Abdul Muquuet It is, clean evidence with refrence to my complaint raised to sebi Dated 3/10/2017 Complaint Number SEBIP/AP17/0000189/1 already sebi had investigated the matter and conveyed under RTI Act As Annnexure E submitted to CiC 3000 Shares was not recieved to apellant immediately on year 1995 but he received after taking up with company it has a record in CIC information provided by sebi in 2014 complaint was launched on scores in sebi with refrence to company VR Mathur Mass communication ltd formerly Known as Gradiente infotainment ltd submitted by sebi as Annexure D part C Reply provided by Company Dated 29 May 2014 through email also conforms 3000 shares will be dispatched in next 15 Days which was submitted by sebi as Annexure E further even the investigation revealed by sebi is also same in Anexure E 3000 shares was not recieved by company immediately on year 1995 but received after taking up with company on year 2014 Further it affects at point which sebi had come to know from enquiry from. Karvy and not From. Gradiente infotainment ltd So kindly disclose the information which was not disclosed, that it does not preatains to ownership of Shares and Shares fraduently transferred 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
1889 CICOM/A/E/22/00018 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 15-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01119 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating: Sir/Madam this information has requested for information from the CPIO regarding Section 6 (2) but the request has been declined on the grounds that the request for information was in the form of a query/clarification and cannot be covered under the Section 2 (f) of 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. 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
1890 CICOM/A/P/22/00001 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 14-01-2022 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/21/00636 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