| SNo. | Registration No | Appellate Authority Name | Received date | Reply Appeal | Reply Doc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1931 | CICOM/A/E/21/00266 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 18-12-2021 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01124 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/21/01124 (1) Learned CPIO failed to comply section 7(9) , 5(3) to provide information in the form in which it has been sought that further appeal is filed by writ petition in Delhi highcourt against cic decision . (2) In the vague reply of learned CPIO, nowhere it is certain whether cic decision was challenged by filing writ petition in Delhi highcourt against disclosure of information of district court of delhi under delhi highcourt rules. As further appeal against cic decision lies in Delhi highcourt. (3) FAA is requested to make certain whether aforesaid cic decision has not been challenged in delhi highcourt. 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 |
| 1932 | CICOM/A/E/21/00262 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 18-12-2021 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/21/00068 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/T/21/00068 (1) Learned CPIO copy pasted reply of another application filed to cic CICOM/R/E/21/01116 having four queries whereas this application has three queries. Thus blind copy pasting reply without reading content is harassment to applicants. (2) Q-4 of another 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. In the instant case, the CPIO & SO (CR-II) has replied to 4 points in the RTI application but there seems to be only 3 points. CPIO & SO (CR-II) is directed to revisit the RTI application and correctly reply to the appellant by 14/01/2022, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1933 | CICOM/A/E/21/00264 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 18-12-2021 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01117/2 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/21/01117/2 (1) Q-1 to 3 Learned CPIO has not given any reply by entirely omitting these queries in the reply. (2) Q-4 Learned CPIO has given entirely false and misleading reply without without bothering to read the content of application WHICH CAN BE PROVED IN SUBSEQUENT PARAS AS FOLLOWING (3) Learned CPIO directed me to refer to cic website to find number of penalties for ignoring section 5(3) of RTI Act whereas no separate data of complaints disposed are available in any annual report of cic on the cic website after supreme court Manipur state judgment of 2011. Thus cpio reply is deliberately false and misleading to hide non compliance of supreme court judgment by cic. (4) Not even a single penality under section 18 available on browsing all ICs inlcluding IC-PA disposal till date (total 262 complaints of IC-PA individually browsed with mere future warnings WITHOUT ANY previous CUMULATIVE RECORD OF WARNINGS TILL DATE GIVEN TO PA in 16 years) despite copy-pasting of Manipur judgment blindly in all complaints decisions. Thus learned CPIO reply is false and misleading needing proper reply. (5) Non availability of information of penalty of section 18 is violation of section 25(3)( c ) of RTI Act necessitating submission of penalty collected public authority wise in the annual report to be put to parliament. 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. In the instant case, the CPIO was liable to provide information for Point 4 of the RTI application only and the CPIO- Consultant (Admn) has replied to Point 1 to 3 on 24/12/2021. 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. 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 |
| 1934 | CICOM/A/E/21/00265 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 18-12-2021 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01117/4 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/21/01117/4 (1) Q-1 to 3 Learned CPIO has not given any reply by entirely omitting these queries in the reply. (2) Q-4 Learned CPIO has given entirely false and misleading reply without without bothering to read the content of application WHICH CAN BE PROVED IN SUBSEQUENT PARAS AS FOLLOWING (3) Learned CPIO directed me to refer to cic website to find number of penalties for ignoring section 5(3) of RTI Act whereas no separate data of complaints disposed are available in any annual report of cic on the cic website after supreme court Manipur state judgment of 2011. Thus cpio reply is deliberately false and misleading to hide non compliance of supreme court judgment by cic. (4) Not even a single penality under section 18 available on browsing all ICs inlcluding IC-PA disposal till date (total 262 complaints of IC-PA individually browsed with mere future warnings WITHOUT ANY previous CUMULATIVE RECORD OF WARNINGS TILL DATE GIVEN TO PA in 16 years) despite copy-pasting of Manipur judgment blindly in all complaints decisions. Thus learned CPIO reply is false and misleading needing proper reply. (5) Non availability of information of penalty of section 18 is violation of section 25(3)( c ) of RTI Act necessitating submission of penalty collected public authority wise in the annual report to be put to parliament. 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. In the instant case, the CPIO was liable to provide information for Point 4 of the RTI application only and the CPIO- Consultant (Admn) has replied to Point 1 to 3 on 24/12/2021. 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. 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 |
| 1935 | CICOM/A/E/21/00261 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 16-12-2021 | RTI Ref No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01117 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/21/01117 (1) Learned CPIO has socalled disposed application WITHOUT GIVING ANY POINTWISE INFORMATION NOR giving new registration numbers of transferred application under section 5(4), 6(3) of RTI Act which is mandatory in rti portal. FAA is requested to disclose new registration numbers of transferred application under 5(4), 6(3) (section not cited by learned CPIO). FAA is requested to disclose exemption given to CIC from disclosure of proper section of transfer of application. (2) Learned CPIO has not given any exemption given to CIC from complying rtiportal rules of using new registration numbers on transfer of application to other CPIO, if any by DoPT. FAA should disclose any exemption given to CIC from giving new registration numbers of online application on the rtionline portal. (3) Learned CPIO closed my application by showing disposed without giving any rules of such disposal of RTI Act, rules without giving any reply 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- ADMIN SECTION & (2) CPIO – CR-II and the RTI Request No. CICOM/R/E/21/01117/1, CICOM/R/E/21/01117/2, CICOM/R/E/21/01117/3 & CICOM/R/E/21/01117/4 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 |
| 1936 | CICOM/A/P/21/00133 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 10-12-2021 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/21/00578 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant mentions that no information is received from the CPIO. DECISION OF 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 has updated the reply of RTI application on the RTI Portal but has not physically sent the reply to the Appellant. Hence, CPIO (CIC-YS) is directed to send the reply to the Appellant by 05/01/2022, free of cost as per RTI Act, 2005. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 1937 | CICOM/A/P/21/00134 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 10-12-2021 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/21/00522 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating 1) I have received no reply to my RTI App. Dtd: 16/10/21. Hence, kindly impose fine/penalty for delay in reply of one month, two weeks. 2) Please kindly state the reason for delay in reply. 3) Kindly let me know compliance of RTI App. as steps will be taken. 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 (IC-SC) has already replied to the RTI application within the prescribed time but has inadvertently sent the reply to wrong address. The address in the reply given by the CPIO does not pertain to the Appellant. Hence, CPIO (IC-SC) is directed to send the reply to the Appellant on his correct address by 05/01/2022, free of cost as per RTI Act, 2005. The appeal is disposed off accordingly. | NA |
| 1938 | CICOM/A/P/21/00135 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 10-12-2021 | RTI Ref No.-CICOM/R/P/21/00530 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant mentions his grievance related to various Departments of Government of India i.e. CVC, DOP&T, NIRDPR etc. and in the link paper for First Appeal received on 14.12.2021 the Appellant states letters received from CPIO (IC-SP) is a futile exercise in his view the DOP&T, GOI have failed to take action though a period of 11 months are over against 15 days time period allowed by the Hon’ble CIC as well as DOP&T, GOI is untenable legally. . 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’s 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 off accordingly. | NA |
| 1939 | CICOM/A/P/21/00136 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 10-12-2021 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/21/00469 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant mentions that the information provided is not complete and it does not contain the specific information on the said points except that the matter has been referred to the Law Department seeking advice in the case. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. The CPIO has provided information as sought by the Appellant in his RTI Application. 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 off accordingly. | NA |
| 1940 | CICOM/A/P/21/00137 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 10-12-2021 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/21/00417 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant mentions that CPIO has not provided required information. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and CPIO’s reply 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. It is observed that CPIO has not replied to Para 3 of the RTI application. CPIO is not expected to interpret the information available in the records. The Appellant may refer the RTI Act, 2005 and the final order of the Second Appellate Authority for the subject case. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO-DR to IC(HS) for Para 1 and Para 2 is appropriate and as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed off accordingly. | NA |