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
1921 CICOM/A/P/21/00153 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-12-2021 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/P/21/00557 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant in his first appeal application states that: As regards the point no. (ii) and (iii) of CPIO,CIC letter no. and date as cited in the above reference column no. (i), an additional set of papers for our Additional Secretary, CIC for making arrangements to forward the same to PPS to Additional Secretary, CIC and I did not see of any of his contribution of CPIO in this case as per the provisions in CIC. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and CPIO’s reply have been perused. The CPIOs 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 information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application is provided by the CPIO and the grounds of First Appeal stated by the Appellant are beyond the purview of the FAA. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1922 CICOM/A/P/21/00154 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-12-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/21/00533 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant mentions the following: 1) For appeals dated 13/04/20, 02/09/21, 06/09/21 & 01/05/21, the appellant does not agree with the statement made and status indicated of the CPIO. 2) For 2nd Appeal dated 08/09/20 & 28/10/20, the appellant wants to know whether a date of hearing has been fixed. 3) For point 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14 &15 in reply of CPIO I/c Dak Section, the appellant wants to know the present status of the appeals. 4) For point 14 & 15 in the reply furnished by CPIO & SO, CR-II (assistance u/s 5(4)), the appellant is not able to understand the action taken and wants more details of the same. 5) For point 2 & 7 in the reply furnished by CPIO & SO, CR-II (assistance u/s 5(4)), the appellant mentions that reply is not correct and for point 12, the appellant mentions that the reply is given is not clear. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and CPIO’s reply have been perused. The point wise decision of the First Appellate Authority is as under: Point No. 1, 2, 4 & 5- 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 information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application is already provided by the CPIOs’. Point No. 3 – In the instant case, CPIO DR to IC-SP is directed to provide the latest action taken in respect of point No. 6, 8, 9, 10, 14 & 15 by 14/01/2022, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1923 CICOM/A/P/21/00150 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-12-2021 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/P/21/00516 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 For Point 1, 2 & 3 - 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. For Point 4 – CPIO is not supposed to interpret the information. The RTI Act, 2005 is already in public domain. Hence, CPIO is not supposed to provide this information. In the instant case, the information sought by the Appellant in the RTI application is provided by the CPIO within the prescribed time as per RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1924 CICOM/A/E/21/00272 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-12-2021 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/T/21/00063 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। किसी अन्यं विभाग में दाखिल आर.टी.आई. आवेदनों पर किसी तरह की कार्यवाही करना किसी दूसरे विभाग के प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के अधिकार क्षेत्र से बाहर 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
1925 CICOM/A/E/21/00271 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-12-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01104 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : The response of CPIO dd. 24.12.2021(E ) to my query registered as CICOM/R/E/01104 on3.12.2021 is unsatisfactory for the following reasons: 1.regarding non compliance with IC order dd. 11.2.2020 in CIC/DIGDE/A/635923,CPIO I filed request on 21.4.2021(A) asking reasons for treating CPIO o/o DEO Allahabad letter dd. 13.4.2021 as compliance, and was informed by Shri Assija on 26.5.2021(B) that MATTER WAS NOT CLOSED, since it was not put up to IC for consideration etc. 2. On appeal, it was confirmed in para.II as above( C), and duly disposed of on 18.6.2021. 3.On 3.12.2021(D) I again requested information about status of compliance with IC order dd. 11.2.2020, to which CPIO replied on 24.12.2021(E), that though production of affidavit was ordered but not furnished, the matter is treated as closed on basis of CPIO letter dd.13.4.2021. However, earlier Mr.Assija, CPIO had himself informed on 26.5.2021(B) that CPIO letter dd. 13.4.2021 was not treated as compliance, and was yet to be put up to IC for consideration etc. 4. Mr.Assija is also not the competent authority to declare compliance in violation of IC order dd. 11.2.2020, and without putting up to Hon’ble IC, who is under oath to uphold the law and the constitution. 5. This action by Mr.Assija results in violation of my Fundamental Rights under art.21 of the Constitution, and is also in violation of sec.4.2 of NALSA(legal services to senior citizens)scheme 2016, and only serves to undermine the RTI Act itself. 6. It is thus requested that CPIO, Mr.Assija be directed to put up the matter of non-compliance as admitted by him earlier, and in view of the foregoing dispensation for senior citizens, (Aadhar card enclosed), to Hon’ble IC for consideration for exercising powers under sec.19.8 to ensure compliance with IC order dd. 11.2.2020. 7.MR ASSIJA HAS ABUSED HIS OFFICIAL POSITION AS A CIC OFFICIAL TO HARASS A SENIOR CITIZEN APPLICANT BY RENDERING THE RTI ACT DEFUNCT, WHICH MUST BE VIEWED SERIOUSLY, TO AVOID RECURRENCE. 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. He is also not required to interpret information or decision of CIC. 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
1926 CICOM/A/E/21/00269 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-12-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01174 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : Hello Sir, I wanted to bring to your notice I had requested below information via CICOM/R/E/21/01174 and it was rejected on the grounds that the information is not available in the CIC. However I wanted to bring to your notice the same information was provided to Mr Harish Raju in Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2013/001032. I have attached a copy of the Appeal and the decision for your reference. Please help us with the requested information at the earliest. I Sandeep SK, residing at Hennur Main Road, Bangalore 560084, requesting the concerned department to issue a certified copy of Notary license issued to Sri Rangaramu V. and the Notary Register Entry from 01.03.1995 to 30.03.1995 as maintained by Sri Rangaramu V. advocate & Notary along with the receipts issued by him in respect of entering agreement, affidavit, GPA etc 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. He is also not required to interpret information or decision of CIC. In the instant case, the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 as the matter in the RTI application is related to Public Authority working under State Government. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1927 CICOM/A/E/21/00270 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-12-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01175 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : Hello Sir, I had requested for below information via CICOM/R/E/21/01175, the RTI was closed telling the information is not available in CIC. However I wanted to bring to your notice that similar kind of information provided for Harish Raju in Appeal No. CIC/SS/A/2013/001032 for Rangaramu V. Notary Bangalore My sincere request is to share the requested information at the earliest. Attached the copy of the Appeal for your reference. I Sandeep SK, residing at Hennur Main Road, Bangalore 560084, requesting the concerned department to issue a certified copy of Notary license issued to Sri M.R.Suvarna (Notary License No. 79), Notary Public, Govt of Karnataka for Bangalore Metropolitian Area and the Notary Register Entry from 01.03.1995 to 30.03.1995 as maintained by M.R.Suvarna advocate & Notary along with the receipts issued by him in respect of entering agreement, affidavit, GPA etc. 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. He is also not required to interpret information or decision of CIC. In the instant case, the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 as the matter in the RTI application is related to Public Authority working under State Government. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
1928 CICOM/A/E/21/00268 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 21-12-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/21/00072 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : Request under RTI no. CICOM/R/T/21/00072. A/ Prior to going through the point no. 1 to 5 (5) requests, I request the Appellate to not overlook the Oath that was taken prior to joining the GOI service. Further, I request the Appellate to go through OM no. 1/8/2007-IR (dated 08 Nov. 2017), 1/69/2007-IR (dated 27 Feb. 2008), 1/3/2008-IR, 1/4/2008-IR (dated 25 April, 2008), 1/32/2013-IR (dated 28 Nov. 2013 plus 17 Feb. 2015) and several other OM that are issued under the RTI Act, available on the DoPAT official website. PLEASE DO ALSO NOT OVERLOOK DISCLOSURE OF THIRD PARTY INFORMATION GUIDELINE/S. B/ I REQUEST THE APPELLATE TO NOT UNDERESTIMATE PLUS OVERLOOK ATTACHED MATTER AND ALL THE PROOFS ,, ESPECIALLY PAGE NO. 4 IN ATTACHMENT,, WHERE A COPY OF THE KOTAK SECURITIES PROFILE IS ATTACHED AND THE STRENGTH OF HIDDEN MATTER CAN BE UNDERSTOOD I.S. QUITE STRONG. PLEASE DO ALSO NOT OVERLOOK POINT NO. 5 I.E. HEREUNDER WHICH IS IN FAVOR OF GOI C/Please be informed that several concerned officials are CORRUPT and not working for GOI, therefore, request is presented before the CIC to provide the following five (5) information so that a clear picture of the hidden White Collar Financial Crime could be seen by the GOI where different departments several officials have been playing an important role in Financial Crime with Stockbroker Kotak Securities that steals (Mis appropriate) large amounts from INNOCENT investor a/c. Other side, several officials SAVE Kotak Securities by closing the investor complaints EITHER by doing FORGERY or on FALSE grounds 1/ I REQUEST THE CIC TO GO THROUGH THE ATTACHED CASE, GOI RULES, REGULATIONS, GUIDELINES, CIRCULARS ETC. THOSE ARE ALSO IN THE ATTACHMENT. PLEASE ALSO GO THROUGH PRIMA FACIE PROOFS THOSE ARE ON PAGES NO. 19, 20, 21 PLUS 22 AND PLS PROVIDE AN OFFICIAL REPORT ON THE ATTACHED CASE. 2/ I request the CIC to go through the attached case, GOI rules, regulations etc., all the proofs, and provide CATEGORY in which such TRANSACTIONS falls. A. Fraudulent B. Cheating C. General D. Else (pls specify) 3/ I request the CIC to go through attached case and provide CATEGORY in which attached case falls, A. A Hidden White Collar Financial Crime B/ A Serous Financial Fraud C/ A Stock/Share market SCAM D/ Else (pls specify) 4/ I request CIC to go through attached case and provide GOI agencies names to whom the attached should be notified, A/ Serious Fraud Investigation Office B/ CBI C/ CEIB D/ EOW E/ The NFCG (Committee to review offense under the Co. Act, 2013) F/ FIU (India) G/ Else (Pls specify) 5/ I request CIC to go through the attached case, Securities Act, PRIMA FACIE proofs (on pages no. 19, 20, 21 plus 22 which given by DEA MOF plus SEBI) and provide CATEGORY of the penalty amount that GOI might recover against EACH THEFT that was made by Kotak Securities from my a/c A. Rs. Twenty Five (25) Crores B. Rs. Twenty (20) Crores C. Another amount ((pls specify with Securities Act and GOI weblink . 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. He is also not required to interpret information or decision of CIC. In the instant case, the CPIO has already forwarded the RTI Application to the Department of Financial Services on 10.12.2021 vide RTI application No. CICOM/R/E/21/01130. 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
1929 CICOM/A/E/21/00267 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 19-12-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01076 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal mentioning that CPIO provided incomplete, misleading or false information stating: As per Section 19(5) of RTI Act 2005:- In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request. Sir disposal of RTI application by submitting the letter file No 2021/CIC/ADMN/RTI dated 13 December 2021 which is showing their denial mode of information as per section mentioned above. I am approaching you for a decision please. Information No 1:- Accepted & retrieved. Information No 2:- Partially accepted as pay level mentioned but other perks & allowances not provided by Consultant (Admn) during deputation of Shri Yogesh Kumar Singhal in CIC. This information is connected with the deputation of a designated employee. Requested to issue the direction as per Act framed. Information No 3:- Not accepting the refusal/denial of information with the help of Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act 2005. As per mention section 8(1)(j):- (j) information which relates……………………..of such information: Provided that the information, …………………..shall not be denied to any person. Ground of Appeal:- Sir Annual Immovable property statement is the vigilant activity of public servants & has to be and might to be published in the public domain. This is not personal/exempted information in the public domain. Several authorities are publishing the AIPR in the public domain & the CPIO of Honorable CIC is refusing to provide the information in the public domain. This is a questionable condition at the CIC level. Sir requested to direct the Consultant to read the complete section 8(1)(j) which clearly directed that information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. In another way consultant is disobeying the direction of Parliament or State Legislature. Either submit the information or provide the statement that they will not submit such information even after asked by Parliament or State Legislature of democratic setup. Information No 4:- Accepted. Information No 5:- Not accepted as information is connected with policy which facilitates the employees either performing the assignment or returning back as & which wish to do so. As per section 2 (f) of RTI Act 2005 (f) “information” means any ………………………any other law for the time being in force; Ground of Appeal:- Sir, this is because of contaminated administration by which employees served or not served in parent cadre as and when the department needed their capability & knowledge moves on deputation and when comfortable return to parent cadre. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and replygiven by CPIO (CIC-YS) of CIC have been perused. For Point No. 2, & 5 - The CPIO of 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 information sought by the Appellant in his RTI application is provided by the CPIO. For Point No. 3- As per Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information 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
1930 CICOM/A/E/21/00263 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 18-12-2021 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/21/01116 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/21/01116 (1) Learned CPIO copy pasted reply of another application filed to DoPT having three queries whereas this application has four queries. (2) Q-4 of this application CICOM/R/E/21/01116 number of penalty of section 18 in one decade is PERTAINING TO CIC (not DoPT as copy pasted reply sent by learned CPIO) (3) Learned CPIO declared this application to be pertaining to DoPT without bothering to transfer to DoPT under section 6(3) within five days of receipt of application. FAA is requested to cast liability on CPIO to collect and provide information due to gross violation of 6(3) in view of numerous scic, highcourt judgments. (4) FAA is requested to dispose this appeal in quasi-judicial manner pointwise with detailed reasons preferably by conducting hearing in compliance to supreme court judgment of Namit Sharma vs UoI para-76,96 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. He is also not required to segregate, interpret information or decision of CIC. 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