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
2081 CICOM/A/E/21/00177 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 05-08-2021 RTI Question: 1. CIC में इंटरनेट leased line और टेलीफोन का एनुअल मैंटीनैंस किस एजेंसी को दिया गया है। CPIO Reply: No company has been awarded contact for Annual Maintenance of Internet leased line and Telephone in CIC. Decision of FAA: यदि इस संबंध में सीआईसी के रिकॉर्ड में कोई दस्तावेज उपलब्ध है तो उसे आवेदक को 20.09.2021 तक प्रदान किया जाए। RTI Question: 2. यदि इंटरनेट leased line और telephone का एनुअल मेंटेनेंस किसी एजेंसी को दिया गया है तो श्री अनुज कुमार उपाध्याय को किसलिए रखा गया है और इनकी कितनी सैलरी है। CPIO Reply: Shri Anuj Kumar Upadhyay has been deployed in the Central Information Commission to arrange Video Conferencing and to liaise with other parties (Applicant/NIC) in the regard. Information and Shri Anuj Kumar Upadhyay has not given his consent to disclose the same. Decision of FAA: आर.टी.आई. एक्ट 2005 के सेक्शन 8.1 (j) अंतर्गत वांछित सूचना प्रदान नहीं की जा सकती। 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। RTI Question: 5. क्या कोई भी कार्यालय आदेश कंसलटेंट द्वारा निकला जा सकता है, यदि हाँ तो इसके सन्दर्भ में आदेश की सत्यापित प्रतिलिपि प्रदान करें। CPIO Reply: This order has been issued after the approval of the Competent Authority for administrative convenience only. Decision of FAA: 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। RTI Question: 6. ऑफिस आर्डर no. 19/3/2021/Admn/CIC – MR dated 22.06.2021 से सम्बंधित फाइल की नोटिंग प्रदान करें। CPIO Reply: In this regard you can peruse file after prior appointment in Commission. Decision of FAA: यदि इस संबंध में सीआईसी के रिकॉर्ड में कोई दस्तावेज उपलब्ध है तो उसे आवेदक को 20.09.2021 तक प्रदान किया जाए। RTI Question: 7. क्या कंसलटेंट नियुक्त करने के लिए सेंट्रल/स्टेट गवर्नमेंट के अनुभव की आवश्यकता नहीं होती है। यदि हाँ तो किस आधार पर ऑफिस आर्डर no. 19/3/2021/Admn/CIC – MR dated 22.06.2021 निकला गया। CPIO Reply: This order has been issued after the approval of the Competent Authority for administrative convenience only. Decision of FAA: प्रश्न के पहले भाग में यदि इस संबंध में सीआईसी के रिकॉर्ड में कोई दस्तावेज उपलब्ध है तो उसे आवेदक को प्रदान किया जाए।तथा दूसरे भाग में प्रेषित की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा 2 (च) के प्रावधानों के अनुसार एक जन सूचना अधिकारी केवल सम्बंधित लोक प्राधिकरण के रिकॉर्ड में एक सामग्री के रूप में उपलब्ध सूचना ही प्रदान कर सकता 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। RTI Question: 8. श्री अनुज कुमार उपाध्याय की शैक्षिक योग्यता का वेरिफिकेशन किसने किया है। इनकी शैक्षिक योग्यता की सत्यापित प्रतिलिपि प्रदान करे. CPIO Reply: Information regarding educational qualification is personal information and Shri Upadhyay has not given his consent to disclose the same. Decision of FAA: प्रश्न के पहले भाग में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (CIC) को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि 20.09.2021 तक अपीलकर्ता को आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/21/00659 के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पूर्ण एवं स्पष्ट सूचना प्रेषित की जाये। तथा प्रशन के दूसरे भाग में अपीलकर्ता को आर. टी.आई. एक्ट 2005 के सेक्शन 8.1 (j) अंतर्गत वांछित सूचना प्रदान नहीं की जा सकती। RTI Question: 10. कृपया उपरोक्त सूचनाएं सॉफ्ट कॉपी, में मेरी ईमेल पर उपलब्ध कराई जाये - email-taann0507@gmail.com Decision of FAA: 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
2082 CICOM/A/E/21/00175 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-08-2021 First Appeal Numbers: CICOM/A/E/21/00172 & CICOM/A/E/21/00175 I. The applicant vide RTI application No. CICOM/R/E/21/00607 dated 03.07.2021 had requested information under Paras-(A),(B)&(C). Unsatisfied with the reply/replies of the CPIO(s), he had earlier submitted first appeal in respect (A) & (B). Now he has submitted first appeal with regard to (C) of the above application which relates to status of 16 diary numbers. II. Ms. Amita Chauhan, CPIO (CR-II), CIC had provided status of all 16 diary numbers vide letter dated 03.08.2020. III. In his First Appeal dated 31.07.2021, the Appellant requested to provide remaining information related to his RTI application. Another first appeal No.CICOM/A/E/21/00175 submitted due to one-day delay for which CPIO regretted. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petitions, RTI application and replies given by the CPIOs have been seen. As the CPIO (CR-II) had provided information in respect of all 16 diary numbers mentioned in Para-(C) of the RTI Application dated 03.07.2021, the reply of CPIO is considered appropriate and as per provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. First Appeal decision in respect of Para-(A)&(B) of the RTI Application had already been given on 16.08.2021. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of FAA in the matter. V. The appeal is being disposed of accordingly. NA
2083 CICOM/A/E/21/00173 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-08-2021 ऑनलाइन 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/E/21/00569 के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (CIC) 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। प्रथम अपील में उल्लेखित अन्य मदें जो कि RTI आवेदन का हिस्सा नहीं है, तथा उस पर प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी द्वारा कोई कार्यवाही अपेक्षित नहीं है। NA
2084 CICOM/A/E/21/00174 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-08-2021 ऑनलाइन 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/E/21/00660 के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (Admin) 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। प्रथम अपील में उल्लेखित अन्य मदें जो कि RTI आवेदन का हिस्सा नहीं है, तथा उस पर प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी द्वारा कोई कार्यवाही अपेक्षित नहीं है। NA
2085 CICOM/A/E/21/00172 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 31-07-2021 First Appeal Numbers: CICOM/A/E/21/00172 & CICOM/A/E/21/00175 I. The applicant vide RTI application No. CICOM/R/E/21/00607 dated 03.07.2021 had requested information under Paras-(A),(B)&(C). Unsatisfied with the reply/replies of the CPIO(s), he had earlier submitted first appeal in respect (A) & (B). Now he has submitted first appeal with regard to (C) of the above application which relates to status of 16 diary numbers. II. Ms. Amita Chauhan, CPIO (CR-II), CIC had provided status of all 16 diary numbers vide letter dated 03.08.2020. III. In his First Appeal dated 31.07.2021, the Appellant requested to provide remaining information related to his RTI application. Another first appeal No.CICOM/A/E/21/00175 submitted due to one-day delay for which CPIO regretted. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petitions, RTI application and replies given by the CPIOs have been seen. As the CPIO (CR-II) had provided information in respect of all 16 diary numbers mentioned in Para-(C) of the RTI Application dated 03.07.2021, the reply of CPIO is considered appropriate and as per provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. First Appeal decision in respect of Para-(A)&(B) of the RTI Application had already been given on 16.08.2021. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of FAA in the matter. V. The appeal is being disposed of accordingly. NA
2086 CICOM/A/E/21/00171 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 29-07-2021 FIRST APPEAL NO.CICOM/A/21/00171 I. BRIEF OF THE CASE: The applicant sought information on 9 points vide RTI request No. CICOM/R/E/21/00601 dated 02.07.2021. The instant first appeal is in respect of Points-6,8&9. Point-6 related to action taken b NA
2087 CICOM/A/E/21/00169 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-07-2021 REF: RTI REQUEST NO.CICOM/R/E/21/00601 DATED 02.07.2021 FAA Decision on First Appeal No.CICOM/A/E/21/00155 in respect of Point-1 of the above RTI request had been disposed on 03.09.2021. The following are point-wise FAA DECISION IN RESPECT OF FIRST APPEAL NO. CICOM/A/E/21/00163, CICOM/A/E/21/00164, CICOM/A/E/21/00165, CICOM/A/E/21/00169 & CICOM/A/E/21/00170 (5 nos.) on points-2,3,4,5,7&9 of the above RTI request. FAA DECISION ON POINT-2: Applicant’s request is very vague. Concerned CPIO (wherever early hearings were held as per the list) is directed to arrange inspection of available records/files and let the applicant specify the desired document(s) so that the same may be provided as per procedure laid down in RTI Act/Rules. CPIO may please ensure that third party information which does not have larger public interest be kept aside from inspection under the ambit of Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. FAA DECISION ON POINT-3: Concerned CPIO (wherever early hearings were held as per the list) is directed to arrange inspection of available records/files and let the applicant specify the desired document(s) so that the same may be provided as per procedure laid down in RTI Act/Rules. CPIO may please ensure that third party information which does not have larger public interest be kept aside from inspection, under the ambit of Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. FAA DECISION ON POINT-4: 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. The CPIOs have provided the procedure being followed in the Commission. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO, CIC is appropriate and as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. FAA DECISION ON POINT-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. CPIO (M&R)-CIC have provided available information to the applicant which is appropriate u/s 2(f) of RTI Act 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of FAA in the matter. FAA DECISION ON POINT-7: The reply of CPIOs is in line with FAQ made available on the website of CIC for information of citizens. 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’. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. FAA DECISION ON POINT-9: As the applicant has not sought any information at this stage, no intervention required on behalf of FAA in the matter. NA
2088 CICOM/A/E/21/00170 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-07-2021 REF: RTI REQUEST NO.CICOM/R/E/21/00601 DATED 02.07.2021 FAA Decision on First Appeal No.CICOM/A/E/21/00155 in respect of Point-1 of the above RTI request had been disposed on 03.09.2021. The following are point-wise FAA DECISION IN RESPECT OF FIRST APPEAL NO. CICOM/A/E/21/00163, CICOM/A/E/21/00164, CICOM/A/E/21/00165, CICOM/A/E/21/00169 & CICOM/A/E/21/00170 (5 nos.) on points-2,3,4,5,7&9 of the above RTI request. FAA DECISION ON POINT-2: Applicant’s request is very vague. Concerned CPIO (wherever early hearings were held as per the list) is directed to arrange inspection of available records/files and let the applicant specify the desired document(s) so that the same may be provided as per procedure laid down in RTI Act/Rules. CPIO may please ensure that third party information which does not have larger public interest be kept aside from inspection under the ambit of Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. FAA DECISION ON POINT-3: Concerned CPIO (wherever early hearings were held as per the list) is directed to arrange inspection of available records/files and let the applicant specify the desired document(s) so that the same may be provided as per procedure laid down in RTI Act/Rules. CPIO may please ensure that third party information which does not have larger public interest be kept aside from inspection, under the ambit of Section 8(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. FAA DECISION ON POINT-4: 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. The CPIOs have provided the procedure being followed in the Commission. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO, CIC is appropriate and as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. FAA DECISION ON POINT-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. CPIO (M&R)-CIC have provided available information to the applicant which is appropriate u/s 2(f) of RTI Act 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of FAA in the matter. FAA DECISION ON POINT-7: The reply of CPIOs is in line with FAQ made available on the website of CIC for information of citizens. 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’. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. FAA DECISION ON POINT-9: As the applicant has not sought any information at this stage, no intervention required on behalf of FAA in the matter. NA
2089 CICOM/A/E/21/00168 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-07-2021 ऑनलाइन 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/E/21/00644 के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (RTI CELL) द्वारा प्रेषित की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों एवं मांगी गई सूचना के अनुसार ही है। उल्लेखनीय है कि सूचना अधिकार अधिकारी अधिनियम की धारा 2 (च) के प्रावधानों के अनुसार एक जन सूचना अधिकारी केवल सम्बंधित लोक प्राधिकरण के रिकॉर्ड में एक सामग्री के रूप में उपलब्ध सूचना ही प्रदान कर सकता 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
2090 CICOM/A/E/21/00157 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-07-2021 Grounds for First Appeal The appellant has mentioned “Refused access to information requested” as the grounds for his first appeals No.CICOM/A/E/21/00156 to 00162 (7 nos.). DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal petitions, RTI applications and replies given by the CPIO (RTI Cell)-CIC have been perused. It is observed from all RTI applications of the appellant that he had specifically mentioned to whom the RTI meant for viz., various authorities of GNCTD and its organisations and demanded the CPIO-CIC to transfer his RTI application to the respective authority. It is also noticed that the appellant had asked in his RTI applications to provide information of reason of non-action on a complaint dated 10.07.2021 of Shri Gaurav Naryana addressed to Monitoring Committee Delhi. As per DoPT OM No.10/2/2008-IR dated 12.06.2008 [para 3(iv)], “if a person makes an application to a public authority for some information which is the concern of a public authority under any State Government or the UT Administration, the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the public authority receiving the application should inform the applicant that the information may be had from the concerned State Government/UT Administration.” Hence, the response given by the CPIO (RTI Cell)-CIC is not in-line with the aforesaid OM from DoPT. CPIO (RTI Cell)-CIC is directed to inform the applicant that the information may be had from the concerned State Government/ UT Administration. A copy of the aforesaid OM from DoPT may also be provided to the appellant for ready reference. The appeal is being disposed of accordingly. NA