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
1971 CICOM/A/E/21/00242 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 13-11-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/00960 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. 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. In addition to this, the grounds for first appeal mentioned by the Appellant are beyond that of the RTI application. 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. 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 of accordingly. NA
1972 CICOM/A/P/21/00123 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 12-11-2021 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The appellant has mentioned that his query is not hypothetical and is not clarificatory also. He has requested to order PIO to provide 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. 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 CPIO (IC-UM) is directed to reply to the appellant suitably on the above lines. The appeal is disposed off accordingly. NA
1973 CICOM/A/P/21/00121 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-11-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/21/00448 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The appellant has stated that “the reply furnished by PIO is irrelevant, unconnected and malevolent for to evade furnishing of information”. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and CPIO’s reply have been perused. The CPIO (IC-UM) has provided information as per the records of the Commission. Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO(IC-UM) 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
1974 CICOM/A/P/21/00127 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-11-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/21/00507 Grounds for First Appeal The appellant has requested to reconsider/reopen the File No.CIC/BOMAH/A/2016/302950. Decision of First Appellate Authority The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by the CPIO’s-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, the grounds for first appeal mentioned by the Appellant are beyond that of the RTI application. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO’s, CIC is considered 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 being disposed of accordingly. NA
1975 CICOM/A/P/21/00120 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-11-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/21/00450 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The appellant has requested to order PIO to forward his RTI Application to concern department/office and provide complete information. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and CPIO’s reply have been perused. The CPIO (IC-UM) has provided information as per the records of the Commission. Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO(IC-UM) 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
1976 CICOM/A/P/21/00122 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-11-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/21/00483 Grounds for First Appeal The appellant has mentioned in his first appeal that the information to be supplied is specific, limited, part of instructions/ orders and self-explanatory that does not require to visit the official website for information. The applicant wants certified/attested copies of information. Decision of First Appellate Authority The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by the CPIO’s-CIC have been perused. With regard to Point-1,2 & 6 once information has been provided in public domain and on the website, the information is no longer held by or under the control of any public authority and hence, is no longer accessible as ‘right to information’. Hence, the reply provided by the CPIO, CIC is as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. As regards points 3 to 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. He is also not required to interpret information or decision of CIC. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO, CIC is considered 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 being disposed of accordingly. NA
1977 CICOM/A/P/21/00125 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-11-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/21/00472 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: Nodal CPIO has not transferred the RTI Application to the CPIOs who are custodian of the information sought in the RTI Application. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition dated 11.10.2021, RTI application dated 20.09.2021 and reply given by CPIO (M&R) 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 FAA considers the reply of CPIO as under: Point-1: The CPIO has mentioned the existing practice of the Commission. Point-2: The CPIO has mentioned the existing practice of the Commission. Point-3: The Appellant may peruse the orders of the CIC that have been uploaded on the website of the Commission contains name and designation of the officer who authenticated/ authorised uploading i.e. Deputy Registrar of the concerned Registry. Point-4: The Appellant may also peruse system-generated date of upload along with other details of the decision on the website of CIC. [ www.cic.gov.in => Decisions => Decision (New) after 10 Sept. 2016 => enter file number => submit ] As per decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Registrar of Companies &Ors vs. Dharemendra Kumar Garg & Ors [W.P.(C) 11271/2009], once information has been provided in public domain and on the website, the information is no longer held by or under the control of any public authority and hence, is no longer accessible as ‘right to information’. In view of the above explanation, the reply of CPIO (M&R) of CIC is considered 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
1978 CICOM/A/P/21/00126 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-11-2021 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/21/00426 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
1979 CICOM/A/P/21/00128 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-11-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/21/00492 The Appellant does not agree with reply of CPIO and requests for supply of records and 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. FAA has to ensure supply of available information to the Appellant, in the instant case since there is no information available in the Commission about the receipt of application. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO(I/c Dak Section) 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
1980 CICOM/A/P/21/00119 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-11-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/21/00451 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The appellant has mentioned that his query is not hypothetical and is not clarificatory also. He has requested to order PIO to provide complete information. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition, RTI application and CPIO’s reply have been perused. The CPIO (IC-UM) 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. The CPIO (IC-UM) is directed to reply to the appellant suitably on the above lines by 20/12/2021 free of cost. The appeal is disposed off accordingly. NA