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
1961 CICOM/A/E/21/00249 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-11-2021 Ref RTI No.: CICOM/R/E/21/01014 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The appellant submitted first appeal dated 29.11.2021 requesting information as mentioned in the RTI application. Ground of Appeal It has a record in CIC Dated 30/05/1995 I MR Harbans Singh sahni had applied for shares of VR Mathur Mass communication under NRI category and paid Shares Application Money Rs 30000 which was also specified by sebi further list of shareholder of VR Mathur Mass communication ltd specified NRI which is also in custody of CIC self evidence company have not alloted shares to Harbans Singh Sahni it is clear evidence by sebi company changed the entity name on year 2003 and sudheep Raj Mathur Promoter of company paid Rs 40000 on year 2018 on two installment if we calculate the interest from year 1995 up till 2018 the amount would be much higher than Rs 40000 paid as share Application Money DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition dated 29.11.2021, RTI application dated 02.11.2021 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. NA
1962 CICOM/A/P/21/00129 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 26-11-2021 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/21/00494 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
1963 CICOM/A/P/21/00132 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 26-11-2021 RTI Ref no.- CICOM/R/P/21/00486 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The appellant has requested to order PIO to provide right and complete 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. In addition to this RTI request is very 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(RTI Cell) 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
1964 CICOM/A/P/21/00131 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 26-11-2021 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/P/21/00493 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The appellant has stated to the Appellate Authority, CIC that the CPIO has not paid any importance on his statutory application and requested reply under Section 19(1) of the R.T.I. Act, 2005 seeking information / reply and speedy relief on the long pendency of the matter. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and CPIO’s reply have been perused. CPIOs 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. He is also not required to interpret information or decision of CIC. The appeal is disposed off accordingly. NA
1965 CICOM/A/P/21/00130 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 26-11-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/21/00355 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The appellant has requested to direct the SR Nagar Andhra Bank ( erstwhile Union Bank of India ) to furnish the clear details of information with regard to payment of amount against D.D. No. 044367 for R. 5,65,000/- and also requested for copies of correspondence. under Section 19(1) of the R.T.I. Act, 2005. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and CPIO’s reply have been perused. CPIOs 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. He is also not required to interpret information or decision of CIC. The grounds of First Appeal by the Appellant is beyond the purview of FAA under the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed off accordingly. NA
1966 CICOM/A/E/21/00247 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-11-2021 RTI Ref No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01017/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal mentioning that the letter attached by the CPIO in the reply to his RTI application does not pertains to him. 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 (CR-II) has inadvertently attached the reply to RTI Application No. CICOM/R/E/21/01047/1 instead of CICOM/R/E/21/01017/1. The reply given by the CPIO pertains to Shri Shubham Singh and not to the Appellant. The CPIO (CR-II) is directed to send the correct copy of reply to the Appellant by 24/12/2021, free of cost as per RTI Act, 2005. The appeal is disposed off accordingly. NA
1967 CICOM/A/E/21/00246 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-11-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01004 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal mentioning that CPIO refused access to information requested stating Sir, Information sought by the applicant is not supplied and remarks passed that information sought by the applicant is not covered under section 2[F] of RTI Act 2005 but APPELLATE AUTHORITY of Northern railways used these guidelines vide file no.26/1/2011-CIC Admn. dated 22/02/2011 issued by CIC New Delhi to dispose of the appeal.Hence it covered under 2[F] of RTI Act 2005 as guidelines issued by the CIC New Delhi and directions may kindly be issued to CPIO to supply the complete information on the request of the applicant dated 28/10/2021 with accuracy and transparency. 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. 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
1968 CICOM/A/E/21/00245 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 21-11-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/00979 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal mentioning that CPIO provided incomplete, misleading or false information stating In reply to my RTI application, a casual reply was provided as “No such information is available as per records” My 1st query is “Whether Andhra Bank Employees Co-operative Bank comes under purview of RTI Act”. Did any interpretation of my query refer that I asked any information from any record? The Central Information commission being the apex body for the implementation of RTI, I asked the CIC whether ABECOOP comes under RTI or not. It’s the CIC which is most equipped to decide whether ABECOOP comes under purview of RTI or not. Also as per section 2(f) of RTI Act, information includes opinions, advices etc. It is opinion the reply of CIC is purely casual. For my 2nd query also same reply was given. I asked for different categories of organisations like Regional Rural Bank’s, Co-operative Banks, Co-operative societies, NBFC’s comes under RTI or not. In website of many RRB, NBFC’s, etc contact details of public information officer’s is available. So if I interpret the reply of CIC, it implies that although CIC being the second appellate authority to those RRB or NBFC, the CIC does not know or have no records that those organisations come under RTI or not. In my opinion the reply is wrong or casual. In my 3rd query I asked if any of the above organisation does not come under RTI, to provide the reason for the same. I request CIC that if my appeal is accepted and the concerned CPIO is directed to provide information and if the CPIO informs any of the above organisation does not comes under RTI, he should provide reason for the same. Point to note that my 3rd query depends on the information of my 1st & 2nd query. So even for the sake of argument if I accept that CIC does not have any record for my 1st & 2nd query then reply to my 3rd query should have been not applicable. In my opinion every Public information officer should reply for all queries of RTI applicant. He simply cannot through away a casual reply to all. I think the rule is same for CIC also. Similarly for my 4th query I asked “whatever information provided in respect of above queries, whether sharing the same in public domain or social media will be against any law of the land”. Even a casual interpretation of this query would imply that I asked CIC’s opinion about sharing of its reply in public domain or social media. How a reply for this can be no records available. In my opinion the reply of CPIO is irrelevant, wrong and casual. Hence, I request to appellate authority to direct the concerned CPIO to provide its information or opinion or advice with reasons as per RTI Act. If you are of opinion that the information does not pertains to your office, the application should be transferred to concerned office as per 6(3) 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. 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
1969 CICOM/A/E/21/00243 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 17-11-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/01029 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal mentioning that CPIO provided incomplete, misleading or false information dated 17.11.2021 stating: The CPIO has taken no step in the matter. The Commission should accept its mischief and dishonest acts. I request the CPIO and the Commission to accept the mischief and dishonest acts. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition dated 17.11.2021, RTI application dated 09.11.2021 and reply given by 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. In addition to this, no information is sought by the Appellant in the RTI application. 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 being disposed off accordingly. NA
1970 CICOM/A/E/21/00244 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 17-11-2021 Ref: RTI No. CICOM/R/E/21/00987 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: “Unsatisfied with the reply”, the Appellant submitted first appeal dated 17.11.2021 requesting information as mentioned in the RTI application. Unsatisfied with reply At, point 1 Source, of the, information was denied by cpio of Harban further, it, is specifed by sebi in written submission filed by sebi with refrence to Harban and with refrence to hearing conduct name specified Harban with refrence to hearing conducted CIC/SEBIE/A/2020/800064 with refrence to Gradiente infotainment ltd previously known as VR Mathur Mass communication against sebi in CIC Dated 01/06/2020 DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition dated 17.11.2021, RTI application dated 26.10.2021 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. NA