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
2091 CICOM/A/E/21/00160 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
2092 CICOM/A/E/21/00161 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
2093 CICOM/A/E/21/00156 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
2094 CICOM/A/E/21/00158 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
2095 CICOM/A/E/21/00162 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
2096 CICOM/A/E/21/00159 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
2097 CICOM/A/E/21/00165 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-07-2021 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
2098 CICOM/A/E/21/00167 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-07-2021 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/X/21/00004 के प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारीयों 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
2099 CICOM/A/E/21/00163 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-07-2021 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
2100 CICOM/A/E/21/00164 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-07-2021 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