| SNo. | Registration No | Appellate Authority Name | Received date | Reply Appeal | Reply Doc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1951 | CICOM/A/E/21/00258 | AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE | 08-12-2021 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/00973 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The appellant has mentioned that CPIO has provided incomplete, misleading and false information for Point 1, 2, & 3 and requests for hearing so that witnesses in respect of Para 1 of Appellant’s submission/ground can dispose before FAA under Oath/affidavit that hearing was not done in the sequence as per cause list. 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. He is also not required to interpret information or decision of CIC. In the instant case, the CPIO has already provided the information as available in the records. Accordingly, the grounds of first appeal – “There are two witnesses other than Appellant who were present during hearing and have noted with concern that the hearing was not done in the sequence as per cause list†seems to be irrelevant. CPIO can only provide the information which is available on records. In view of the above, the disposal of information cannot be changed based on any witness or oath/affidavit if at all submitted during the hearing before the First Appellate Authority, which was requested by the appellant in his first appeal. The submissions made by the appellant in his first appeal application are sufficient for consideration by the FAA to arrive at a decision. Accordingly, it was felt that the personal hearing as requested by appellant was not necessary. 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 |
| 1952 | CICOM/A/E/21/00259 | AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE | 08-12-2021 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01011 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The appellant has mentioned that CPIO has provided incomplete, misleading and false information for Point 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8. 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. 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 |
| 1953 | CICOM/A/E/21/00257 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 08-12-2021 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/00226 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : CICOM/R/E/21/00226 WITH REQUEST TO CONDONE DELAY DUE TO COVID-19 SECOND WAVE LOCKDOWN and my final year LLB exam AND MATTER OF WIDE PUBLIC INTEREST After two years of FAA order, no compliance status still available to me of first appeal order pertaining to provision of submission of complaint under section-18 for non-compliance of section-4 to minimize rti use under section 4(2) to significantly reduce excessive waiting period of two years at CIC for disposal of second appeal, complaints (1) Learned CPIO claimed to have sent reply by post without bothering to upload socalled sent reply by post. Till date I have not received any reply nor on the portal reply has been uploaded. FAA is requested to please take initiative to send the socalled reply sent by post. (2) Learned CPIO has nowhere disclosed his identity in the vague reply of merely declaring reply sent by post in violation of DoPT circulars . Openly flouting of DoPT circulars by nodal authority of India giving license to all other public authorities to openly flout DoPT circulars. FAA is requested to take action on such flouting of DoPT circulars to ensure compliance . (3) Learned CPIO has not given any exemption given to CIC for uploading of rti reply on the portal for online applications , if any. FAA is requested to disclose any exemption given to cic for uploading of rti reply on the portal . Flouting of portal rule of uploading of reply by CPIO will license to all public authorities to avoid uploading of reply as prevailing malpractice by significant public authorities to due badly flouting by cic. (4) My desired information is of very wide public interest in view of NOT EVEN A SINGLE PENALITY has been imposed in one decade since 2011 after supreme court judgment of Manipur necessitating submission of section 18 complaints for penalizing of habitual offender CPIOs which still have been condoned by cic with future warnings. So FAA is requested to disclose my desired information of provision of complaint on section-4 non compliance to MINIMIZE RTI USE MANDATED UNDER SECTION 4(2) OF RTI ACT. 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 07.04.2021. 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 off accordingly. | NA |
| 1954 | CICOM/A/E/21/00256 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 04-12-2021 | RTI Ref No.- CICOM/R/E/21/00881/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The appellant has submitted First Appeal mentioning RTI Reply invited for inspection vide letter dated DATED 11-10-2021 Enclosed 7 Undersigned inspected records on 12/10/2021 and requested to provide copy of records shown to Undersigned vide letter dated 14/10/2021. Enclosed Page 8 to 19 Undersigned further meet LD CPIO , LD CPIO informed that he will shortly send the information by the end of November 2021. However, till date information is not supplied ., . In view of above , it is taken as denial of information , hence the first Appeal. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The RTI Application, the reply of CPIO and first appeal have been perused. The point wise decision of the First Appellate Authority is as under: Point 1- The Appellant in his Point 1 of the RTI application has sought for the segregated information. 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. At Point 1(v) the Appellant has sought for soft copy of orders (Hon’ble High Courts as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court of India) served to Central Information Commission, wherever Central Information Commission was party. It is seen that CPIO has already offered the inspection of records for the same and Appellant has already availed the same. In addition to this, it is pertinent to mention here that orders of Hon’ble High Courts as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court of India are already published in public domain. The information once published in public domain may not be treated as information held by a particular public authority. Point 4 – The Appellant has already availed the opportunity of inspection of records. Point 5 – As mentioned at Point 1. 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 |
| 1955 | CICOM/A/E/21/00255 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 03-12-2021 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01101 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: “Refused access to Information requestedâ€, the Appellant submitted first appeal dated 03.12.2021 requesting information as mentioned in the RTI application. Proper information was not provided by cpio Information under RTI Act which was not prvided by cpio and we, had not ask Annexure submitted by sebi Or what Annexure states of sebi For eg in figure like 100 shares or 1000 shares DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by CPIO (IC-NG) 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. 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 |
| 1956 | CICOM/A/E/21/00254 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 03-12-2021 | RTI Ref No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01091 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal dated 03.12.2021 stating: I respect Honourable CPIO very much . Honourable CPIO did not furnish about competent Authority who can give direction instruction advise and can ask to Applicant/complainant to with draw all Application made under RTI Act 2005. Please take necessary action to provide me information about competent Authority who can give direction instruction advise and can ask to Applicant/complainant to with draw all Application made under RTI Act 2005. where Applicant/complainant did not request to with draw RTI Applications. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by CPIO (IC-AP) of CIC have been perused. CPIO has provided information as per the records of the Commission. In addition to this, the information sought in Point 4 is vague. 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 |
| 1957 | CICOM/A/E/21/00253 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 02-12-2021 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01052 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: “Refused access to Information requestedâ€, the Appellant submitted first appeal dated 02.12.2021 requesting information as mentioned in the RTI application. The RTI information was denied for audio recording or transcript. The CIC commissioner has left out important part of the hearing in written judgement. We seek both audio recording and transcript which are mandatory for quasi-judicial process like CIC. Else seek information which code of IPC mandates not to record audio hearing and transcript which is maintained in Supreme Court hearing. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by CPIO (CIC-YS) 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. 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 |
| 1958 | CICOM/A/E/21/00252 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 01-12-2021 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01058/4 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal dated 01.12.2021 mentioning that CPIO provided incomplete, misleading or false information stating : The desired information on point 12( a) of the original RTI Application is not available on the website of CIC. Hence the reply furnished by the CPIO is false and misleading. Kindly direct the CPIO to provide the desired information at the earliest. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by CPIO (CIC-YS) 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 collate information that is not a part of the record. He is also not expected to segregate the information. CPIO has already mentioned that the information is available on the CIC website. However, in the present case the CPIO is directed to specify the website link for the available information through the fresh reply by 28.12.2021 free of cost. The appeal is disposed off accordingly. | NA |
| 1959 | CICOM/A/E/21/00251 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 01-12-2021 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/00980 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant has mentioned that response to the RTI application was not received in the time limit and requested the CPIO to provide information free of cost as u/s 7(6) in the RTI, Act 2005. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by the CPIO-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. It is observed that CPIO has not replied to the RTI application within the time limit that has been specified in the RTI Act, 2005. However, it is also seen that CPIO in his reply has already regretted for this delay mentioning about some technical glitch and provided information in Point No. 1 free of cost as under Section 7(6) of the RTI Act, 2005. Notwithstanding to the above, CPIO is directed to stick to the time limit given for replying to the RTI application as per the RTI Act, 2005, hereafter. Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The appeal is being disposed off accordingly. | NA |
| 1960 | CICOM/A/E/21/00248 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 29-11-2021 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/00027 The Appellant submitted first appeal stating : Since I have not received any communication in this regard till date and no information found in the CIC website even after passing of about one year, I request you to look into the matter and inform the status of my application without further delay. I also request to direct the concerned CPIO to furnish the information sought for in my RTI application dated 21.9.2020. Regards, D.Chandra Sekhar 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 25.01.2021. 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 off accordingly. | NA |