| SNo. |
Registration No |
Appellate Authority Name |
Received date |
Reply Appeal |
Reply Doc |
| 211 |
CICOM/A/E/25/00029 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
01-02-2025 |
Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/25/00045
GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL:
The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that
"The above RTI is not filed with the objective of knowing what is available in the public domain or not, the objective of this RTI is only to get answers to the questions asked, if the information is available then please provide it and if not then give the reason for the same,Please answer the above questions in simple form question wise."
DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY:
The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused.
As per Section 2(f) of the 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 collate information that is not a part of the record. Neither can the CPIO provide analysis or interpretation of the information.
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 of accordingly. |
NA |
| 212 |
CICOM/A/E/25/00028 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
31-01-2025 |
Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/24/01650
GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL:
The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that
" I am filing this appeal against the closure of my RTI application dated 20/12/2024, which was transferred to an internal department, but I never received a response. Later, my application was closed with the remark that Information is provided as per the provision in the RTI Act, without actually providing any information or justification for denial. The information I requested pertains to deputation, appointment, and service details of a government employee who has served in ministerial offices for an extended period. These details do not fall under personal information exemptions, as many government departments make such records publicly available. Additionally, transfer postings and deputation details are regularly published through official circulars and notifications, making them part of public records. If any portion of my request is being denied under Section 8(1)(j) or any other exemption, a clear and specific justification should be provided. I request that the concerned department provide the requested information in accordance with the RTI Act. If any part of my request is denied, I seek a proper explanation along with the relevant exemption clause under which the information is being withheld. I also request clarification on whether such information is accessible under the RTI Act and under what circumstances it may be disclosed in the larger public interest. I urge your office to take appropriate action to ensure transparency and provide me with a proper response at the earliest."
DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY:
The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused.
As per Section 2(f) of the 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 collate information that is not a part of the record. Neither can the CPIO provide analysis or interpretation of the information.
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 of accordingly. |
NA |
| 213 |
CICOM/A/E/25/00026 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
30-01-2025 |
Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/24/01686
GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL:
The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that CPIO refused access to information requested.
DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY:
The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused.
As per the Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the applicant shall file information request with the concerned Public Authority which holds the information which appears to be Army headquarters in the present case.
As per Section 2(f) of the 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 collate information that is not a part of the record.
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 of accordingly. |
NA |
| 214 |
CICOM/A/P/25/00038 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
30-01-2025 |
Ref. RTI No. - CICOM/R/P/24/00502
GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL:
The Appellant submitted first appeal stating
“(a) I have not received any reply O/o PIO, CIC u/s 6(3)(ii) of DOP&T/R/P/24/01478 dtd:25/10/24 forwarded to your office by CPGRAMS u/s 6(3)(ii) of RTI Act, 2005. Kindly direct O/o PIO to reply. So let me know
(b) Impose fine/Penalty on O/o PIO for non-reply.â€
DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY:
The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused.
As per Section 2(f) of the 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 collate information that is not a part of the record.
In the instant case, the appellant filed an RTI application in Department of Personnel and Training with RTI no. DOP&T/R/P/24/01478, which was transferred to Central Information Commission under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 on 22.11.2024. The CPIO of Central Information Commission replied to the RTI application on 19.12.2024, which is well within the prescribed time limit as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. However, a copy of CPIO’s RTI reply is being attached with this order as the applicant has mentioned about non-receipt of the RTI reply.
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 of accordingly. |
NA |
| 215 |
CICOM/A/E/25/00027 |
Brig. VIPIN CHAKRAWARTI |
30-01-2025 |
The Online First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. |
NA |
| 216 |
CICOM/A/P/25/00036 |
Brig. VIPIN CHAKRAWARTI |
29-01-2025 |
Please see the file. |
 |
| 217 |
CICOM/A/P/25/00037 |
Brig. VIPIN CHAKRAWARTI |
29-01-2025 |
Please see the file. |
|
| 218 |
CICOM/A/P/25/00035 |
Brig. VIPIN CHAKRAWARTI |
28-01-2025 |
Please see the file. |
|
| 219 |
CICOM/A/E/25/00025 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
27-01-2025 |
Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/24/01667
GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL:
The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that CPIO refused access to information requested.
DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY:
The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused.
The information sought by the applicant in the RTI application appears to be related to the State Government. The applicant may approach the concerned Public Authority in State Government. Further, the working of State Public Authorities comes under the domain of State Information Commission and not come under the domain of the Central Information Commission.
As per the Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the applicant shall file information request with the concerned Public Authority which holds the information.
As per Section 2(f) of the 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 collate information that is not a part of the record.
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 of accordingly. |
NA |
| 220 |
CICOM/A/E/25/00024 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
26-01-2025 |
Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/24/01659
GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL:
The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that CPIO refused access to information requested.
DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY:
The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused.
For Point 5
As per Section 2(f) of the 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 collate information that is not a part of the record.
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 of accordingly. |
NA |