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
1981 CICOM/A/P/21/00124 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/21/00414 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
1982 CICOM/A/E/21/00241 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-11-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/00912 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The appellant submitted first appeal dated 06.11.2021 stating that CPIO had furnished wrong and incomplete information by quoting 19(7) of the Act, requesting information as mentioned in the RTI application. CPIO had furnished wrong and incomplete information by quoting section 19(7) of the Act, therefore, appellant is filing present para-wise First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Para-A ( i ) Appellant had sought true copies of complete file notings upon receipt of appellant representation dated 16.08.2021 (Diary No. 637067) before the Honourable Information Commissioner but reply furnished by CPIO is appearing that Appellant representation dated 16.08.2021 is not submitted before the Honourable Commissioner. Thus, CPIO has furnished information to the Appellant at his own imagination. ( ii ) Appellant had sought the action/decision taken by the Competent Authority on his representation but CPIO did not furnish requisite information to the Appellant and CPIO has taken decision at his own imagination. Para-B Appellant had sought true copies of complete file notings upon receipt of appellant representation dated 16.08.2021 (Diary No.637066) before the Honourable Information Commissioner but reply furnished by CPIO is appearing that Appellant representation dated 16.08.2021 is not submitted before the Honourable Commissioner. Thus, CPIO has furnished information to the Appellant at his own imagination. ( ii ) Appellant had sought the action/decision taken by the Competent Authority on his representation but CPIO did not furnish requisite information to the Appellant and CPIO has taken decision at his own imagination. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition dated 06.11.2021, RTI application dated 27.09.2021 and reply given by CPIO (IC-HS) of CIC have been perused. CPIO can only provide information available. Accordingly, the reply given by CPIO is found to be appropriate under the RTI Act, 2005. No intervention from FAA is necessary. The appeal is disposed off. NA
1983 CICOM/A/E/21/00240 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-11-2021 Ref:CICOM/R/E/21/00969/5 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The appellant has mentioned that CPIO has provided incomplete, misleading and false information. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The RTI Application dated 15.10.2021, the reply of CPIO dated 01.11.2021 and first appeal dated 04.11.2021 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. Therefore no intervention is required on behalf of FAA in the matter. NA
1984 CICOM/A/E/21/00238 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-11-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/00806 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal dated 02.11.2021 stating: see first appeal CICOMAE2100237 filed today now pls revisit information submitted here based on the said first appeal Grounds of appeal include possibilities of fabrication of documents band evidence by CIC DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition dated 02.11.2021, RTI application dated 01.09.2021 and reply given by CPIO (IC-VN) 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
1985 CICOM/A/E/21/00236 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-11-2021 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/21/00798 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The appellant has mentioned that CPIO has provided incomplete, misleading and false information. The Appellant submitted first appeal dated 02.11.2021 stating: fraud where Presiding Officers of CIC associated -- conspriacies between legal aid counsel , legal aid organisation and CIC in order to perpetuate fraud on people of India . Obviously information is not furnished as expected more particularly where CIC is misapporpriating public funds in perpetrating fraud in judicial proceedings DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition dated 02.11.2021, RTI application dated 31.08.2021 and reply given by CPIO (IC-VN) 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
1986 CICOM/A/E/21/00237 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-11-2021 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/21/00799 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal dated 02.11.2021 stating: ground of appeal is fabricating false information the letter dt 10.12.2018 attached to the CPIO response what was the diary number and how was it forwarded to me was it forwrded by email or speedpost or in any other manner or in any othre manner or more than one of these or is it admitted that it is a fabricated back dated letter . Was Mr Sharma in service on that date and occupying that post and did he attend office on that day -- evidence pls . If that letter were really forwarded CICOMR201850907 and CICOMR201950868 would have been suitably reworded DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition dated 02.11.2021, RTI application dated 01.09.2021 and reply given by CPIO (IC-VN) 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
1987 CICOM/A/E/21/00235 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-11-2021 Ref: CICOM/R/E/21/00935 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal dated 02.11.2021 requesting information as mentioned in the RTI application. Ground of Appeal : Source of information provided to CIC with refrence to Dated 10/01/2018 preataining to allotment of shares /transfer of shares, which was denied by cpio kindly refer to RTI Application Dated 28/05/2020 with refrence to RTI ( Ref CICOM/R/E/21/00721) It is, known as contradict statement provided by cpio first 10/01/2018 and know 15/11/2017 pretaining to allotment /transfer, of shares further I am unsatisfied with the, reply of CIC dated 15/11/2017 and also 6/08/2018 karvy letter preatains to allotment of shares/transfer of shares it has record in CIC company Gradiente infotainment ltd on 2014 transfered 3000 shares to Ram, Ms Manasi s sanghvi and Alsha sanjay shah it is important to mention there is no signature of transfere i.e is Harbans Singh sahni on transfer for the so called transfer was fake and maliciously done by cpio of sebi , CIC to rectify its mistake of non allotment of shares to Harbans Singh sahni Here transfer is taking place for those shares which are never been alloted to shareholder Harbans Singh Sahni A copy of share transfer form was sent in email dated 29/05/2020 with refrence to CIC/SEBIE/A/2020/800064 DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition dated 02.11.2021, RTI application dated 04.10.2021 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
1988 CICOM/A/E/21/00233 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-11-2021 Ref: RTI NO. CICOM/R/T/21/00064 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The appellant has requested that his RTI along with First Appeal may be transferred back to President Sectt. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition dated 01.11.2021, RTI application dated 12.10.2021 and reply given by CPIO (Admin Section) of CIC have been perused. The First Appellate Authority in CIC has the jurisdiction over RTI applications and the replies by CPIO in CIC. As such the request made by the Appellant under “Grounds of First Appeal” cannot be processed by FAA. Accordingly, the first appeal has been disposed off. NA
1989 CICOM/A/E/21/00234 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-11-2021 Ref: CICOM/R/E/21/00788 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The appellant had asked for information related to third party which was denied by the CPIO stating u/s 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 and requests for hearing. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petition dated 01.11.2021, RTI application dated 28.08.2021 and reply given by CPIO (IC-NG) of CIC have been perused. The appellant had asked for information related to third party which was denied by the CPIO(IC-NG) stating u/s 11 of the RTI Act, 2005. CPIO is directed to provide the information sought by the appellant keeping in mind and properly applying Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 by 15/12/2021 free of cost. The appeal is disposed off. NA
1990 CICOM/A/E/21/00232 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 31-10-2021 Ref: RTI NO.CICOM/R/E/21/00953 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal mentioning that neither reply was received from the CPIO nor the website error was rectified. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY The First Appeal petition dated 31.10.2021, RTI application dated 09.10.2021 and CPIO reply dated 29.10.2021 of CPIO (CIC-YS) of CIC have been perused. The reply of CPIO is considered appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. However, looking at the problems raised by the Appellant, CPIO is not the appropriate authority to address the issue. Appellant may take up the matter separately with CR-Section/CIC. NA