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
1901 CICOM/A/E/22/00005 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01198 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/21/01198 with request to deliver pointwise speaking order rather than blindly concur with CPIO reply as usual in all previous first appeals by ignoring Namit sharma vs UoI supreme court judgment as well as DoPT guide for FAA (1) Learned CPIO Mr subodh kumar has been habitual offender of RTI always preferring to outrightly reject request on excuse or other. In this application, learned CPIO outrightly rejected non receipt of attached file whereas on the portal, attachment is clearly visible. Such conduct of CPIO to always blindly reject application is very shameful conduct especially at nodal authority of RTI setting bad precedent to all public authorities. (2) Moreover, due to technical error of portal maintained by NIC, learned CPIO should have made diligent effort to get retrieved my attached document. But his malafied intention to always reject application due to empowerment of CIC is very shameful conduct. (3) Further ,learned CPIO have failed to make any diligent effort which is mandated from him under section 19(5) by asking from me by email to send the attached document rather than hasty rejection of application as usual blindly in malafied manner to hide extreme negligence of CIC by hiding break up of complaints and second appeals as was in public domain till 2010. Copy again attached. (4) FAA is requested to direct NIC to resolve this technical issue of showing error for attached pdf documents very commonly which such malafied CPIO always longing for . 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 CPIO (RTI Cell) is directed to revisit the RTI application and appropriately reply to the appellant by 02/02/2022, free of cost. In case, CPIO denies any information, the appropriate section of the RTI Act shall be quoted for such denial, if any. (A copy of the attachment uploaded by the appellant is annexed herewith as the attachments in RTI application were not available due to some error.) The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1902 CICOM/A/E/22/00003 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 05-01-2022 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/21/01092 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/21/01092 तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पुनः स्पष्ट सूचना प्रेषित की जाये। NA
1903 CICOM/A/E/22/00002 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01215 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/21/01215 In this vague reply as usual previously by Mr Subodh kumar , no information is beyond purview of RTI Act . Such refusal has been made as usual without applying mind without bothering to read the content of application. FAA is requested to avoid blindly concurring with CPIO as usual in previous rti decisions without complying natural justice principles by becoming his own judge without giving even pointwise reasoned order by openly violating supreme court judgment of Namit Sharma vs UoI para 76,96 and several other supreme court judgments necessitating reasoned decisions as well as conducting hearing. Even DoPT circular for FAA is also fully neglected by FAA in all previous decisions of treating first appeal to be quasi-judicial procedure. UNFORTUNATELY , CIC ITSELF HAS BECOME BIG OFFENDER OF RTI ACT BY ALWAYS SENDING VAGUE CPIO REPLIES AND BLINDLY CONCURRING WITH CPIO REPLIES IN FIRST APPEALS WITHOUT POINTWISE REASONED ORDER WITHOUT CONDUCRTING HEARING by fully DISOBEYING PREAMBLE OF RTI ACT. Entire information pertains to RTI Act which has been blindly declared to be out of purview of RTI act as following. (1) Q-1, 3,4,5 pertains to compliance of section 19(9) or exemption given to cic from competent authority for ignoring compliance in view of none of cic decision till date displaying compliance of 19(9) (2) Q-2 also pertains to time limit for appeal against cic decisions as mandated under section 19(9). (3) Such repeated attempt of learned CPIO is malafied and needs disciplinary action against him to remove big obstacle of rti act in the cic itself deprieving citizens information under section 3 from cic itself which is nodel authority of india. (4) FAA is requested to conduct rti training to CPIOs like subodh kumar having no knowledge of rti act unduly harassing applicants under section 19(8)(a)(v) suomotu from cic rather than WAITING FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS FOR SECOND APPEAL DECISIONS to avoid such vague replies in next two years from such malafiedly working cpio. Encl- DoPT guide for FAA with request to spare little time to read it esp para 38,41 to ensure quasi-judicial manner of appeal disposal rather than delegating to cpio to prepare decision as usual 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. The information once published in public domain may not be treated as information held by a particular public 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
1904 CICOM/A/E/22/00001 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-01-2022 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01194 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 it does not pretains to ownership of Shares and Shares fraduently transfered with refrence to Gradiente infotainment Ltd 1. Annexure D Part (C) Information provided by sebi In 2014 Harbans Singh Sahni complaint launched sebi Redressal scores with refrence to Gradiente infotainment ltd 2.Documet was submitted by sebi as An Annexure, E complaint Details Dated 29 May 2014 Complaint launched scores Ref SEBIE/AP14/0000171/1 Mentioned in Complaint Details, of Sebi shares apply of VR Mathur Mass communication ltd 3.Dated 29 May 2014 Reply Recieved by Gradiente Infotainment ltd, was submitted By Sebi as, an annexure E Information was provided by company with refrence to 3000 Shares will be dispatched after 15 Days further no information was provided by company with refrence to ownership of Shares and shares transfered Dated 3Rd oct 2017 Complaint Number SEBIP/AP17/0000189/1 Annexure E states of sebi 3000 shares was not recieved by company von year 1995 immediately but received after taking up from the company matter was examined by sebi It is clean evidence information was created by Sebi and 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
1905 CICOM/A/P/21/00155 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 31-12-2021 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/21/00555 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
1906 CICOM/A/P/21/00156 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 31-12-2021 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/21/00581 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
1907 CICOM/A/P/21/00157 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 31-12-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/21/00317 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal against CPIO stating 1) Please let me know the status of my complaint dtd: 09/07/2021, till date. 2) Please let me know the steps taken/initiated on my complaint till date. 3) Please provide me all documents, letters, reports, statements generated, if any, till date. 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 application without mentioning any RTI No. and has filed appeal against CPIO DR (CR-II). After going through the above appeal the RTI No. against which the appeal is filed is ascertained as RTI No. – CICOM/R/P/21/00317/1. Furthermore, the Appellant has submitted the first appeal after 30 days of receipt of reply of the CPIO i.e. reply dated 09.07.2021. 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
1908 CICOM/A/P/21/00158 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 31-12-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/21/00640 प्रथम अपील का आधार “अपीलकर्ता, जन सूचना अधिकारी के जवाब से संतुष्ट नहीं है।” IV निर्णय 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/21/00640 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 । अपीलकर्ता ने अपने अपील में मुहर लगी कॉपी की मांग की है । यह मांगी गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 की धारा 2 (च) में नहीं आती । जन सूचना अधिकारी मुहर लगा कर सूचना देने के लिए बाध्यत नहीं 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 । तद्नुसार अपील निस्तायरित की जाती है । NA
1909 CICOM/A/E/21/00275 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-12-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01017/2 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating: incomplete information provided. please provide information in respect of all the dairy number mentioned in the application alongwith file noting 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 was supposed to reply to the Point 2 of the RTI application (i.e. RTI application No.CICOM/R/E/21/01017/2) and the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The grounds of appeal mentioned above by the appellant pertains to Point 1 of the RTI application i.e. RTI application No. CICOM/R/E/21/01017/1. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1910 CICOM/A/E/21/00276 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-12-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01017 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating: incomplete information provided. please provide information in respect of all the dairy number mentioned in the application alongwith file noting 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 CPIO(RTI Cell) has rightly transferred the RTI application to the concerned CPIOs as (1) CPIO- CR-II & (2) CPIO – DR to IC-SC and the RTI Request No. CICOM/R/E/21/01017/1 & CICOM/R/E/21/01017/2 were generated. The concerned CPIOs have disposed of the RTI request within the prescribed time as per RTI Act, 2005. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly NA