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
2221 CICOM/A/E/21/00056 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-04-2021 I. The applicant vide RTI application No. CICOM/R/E/21/00236 dated 07.03.2021 has requested the following information. “In respect of the complaint of the Applicant to Chief Information Commissioner and Secretary, Central Information Commission, received in Central Information Commission vide Diary numbers E-31167 and E- 31169 and your response to RTI CICOM/R/E/20/01080 on 08.02.2021 that complaints of Shri Amresh Chandra Mathur - - - are under process hence action taken cannot be provided in response to point 3-10 Kindly provide following information 1. Copy of pages on which Diary numbers E-31167 and E- 31169 are recorded. 2. Copy of records through which, dak recorded in Diary numbers E-31167 and E- 31169, was sent to the recipients to whom it was addressed. 3. Name(s) of the person(s) and designation(s) of CIC official whom Chief Information Commissioner /Secretary ordered, to investigate the complaint. 4. Copy of report prepared by CIC officials after investigation in respect of complaint, if any. 5. Copy of report prepared by any person other than CIC officials after investigation in respect of complaint, if any. 6. Action taken by Chief Information Commissioner /Secretary, CIC after receipt of reports mentioned in Para 4 and 5. 7. If no report has been submitted to Chief Information Commissioner /Secretary, CIC by the persons named in response to para 3 recorded reason for not submitting the report till the date of response to this RTI application by CPIO, if any. 8. If no report has been received Chief Information Commissioner /Secretary, CIC recorded reason for not receiving the report till the date of response to this RTI application by CPIO, if any.” II. Shri C.Vinod Babu, CPIO, CIC has given the following reply on 24.03.2021. Point 1&2: eOffice record available for Diary numbers E-31167 & E-31169 are enclosed herewith. Point 3,4,6,7&8: Information sought for cannot be provided as it is exempted u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Point 5 : No such information available. III. In the online First Appeal dated 02.04.2021 the Appellant has submitted as under. “1. CPIO has (a) Neither provided the name of deemed CPIO i.e. S.O. (Admn) who is liable for action U/S 5(5) of the RTI Act; (b) Nor copy of his request to S.O (Admn) u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act 2005. (c) Nor has copy of information provided by S.O (Admn) U/S 5(4) of the RTI Act 2005. 2. In response to query 2, CPIO has attached dak movement record. The records sent by CPIO reflect that dak (Complaint) addressed to the CIC/Secretary, after its receipt on 7-12-2021, has not been seen by CIC/Secretary since the dak was never routed to CIC/Secretary / their PS and as such information provided by CPIO is incomplete in response to query 2. 3. In response to query 3,4,6,7&8, CPIO has stated that sought information is exempted u/s 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act 2005. Complaint has not been seen by CIC/Secretary since they were never routed to them/ their PS as per information provided by CPIO in response to query-2 of this RTI application. Enquiry should have been completed within 3 months of receipt of complaint as per CVC policy. 4. In response to query 5, the information provided by CPIO is incomprehensible in view of his not providing information to query 3,4,6,7 & 8. Prayer - 1. Request personal hearing. 2. Direct CPIO/deemed CPIO to provide requested information.” IV. The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by the CPIO have been seen. The reply sent by CPIO, CIC is appropriate and as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. 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. Therefore, no intervention is required in this matter. V. The appeal is being disposed of accordingly. NA
2222 CICOM/A/E/21/00054 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-04-2021 I. The applicant vide RTI application No. CICOM/R/E/21/00163 dated 15.02.2021 has requested the following information. “In Appeal No. CIC/VS/A/2015/900716/SB, please provide certified copy of the following CD/DVDs: 1. Disk enclosed with reply of CPIO to Honorable CIC, dated 18.04.2017. The particular disk contains 5 videos and 3 photos. It is related to letter received by DCP(North-West Distt. ) on 11.11.2014 with Diary No. 13962 and letter has marking (12pp plus 1CD) and subject: (Unsigned and defective FIR...). 2. In case the particular disk cannot be identified, I request that all six disks enclosed with the CPIO letter dated 18.04.2017 be provided. 3. Kindly also facilitate inspection of the Appeal File CIC/VS/A/2015/900716/SB. I am willing to bear all expenses for making the proper copy of the disk(s). II. Shri S.K. Chitkara, CPIO, CIC has given the following reply on 26.02.2021. “With reference to your RTI application dated 15.02.2021, it is informed with respect to point 1 and 2 that the CDs are not available. As intimated by PIO Cum Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police vide letter dated 18.04.2017, you had filed many RTI applications into the matter and CDS were provided to you by PIO, Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police. With respect to point 3, you may inspect the concerned file on any working day after appointment on phone 01126186535.” III. In the online First Appeal dated 01.04.2021 the Appellant has submitted as under. “The CPIO was unable to provide the requested CDs as they could not be located in the Record Room. What the Record Room did locate quickly was excuses. This from a record room of a quasi-judicial body, in serious criminal matters. Sh. Chitkara, CPIO-CIC, did helpfully provide an inspection and certified copy of the electronic appeal file. He further felt that these six CDs have been already provided to me by the CPIO-Delhi Police. Sh. Chitkara has based his opinion on the letters given by CPIO-Delhi Police. Needless, to say these letters are false and fraudulent. The CPIO-Delhi Police, in the letters, falsely claims to have delivered 6 CDs to me, but provides receipt for only 5. Further, despite my repeated questionings, he is fraudulently silent about a CRITICAL 7th CD - dated 26.10.2014. To conceal this mischief about the 6th and 7th CDs – he says that many RTI applications were filed and so the CDs must have been given somewhere or the other, but again no proof is given. I have initiated appropriate actions against these letters recently as they were brought to my attention only in January 2021. I request you to have the CDs located in your records immediately. This is a serious criminal matter affecting life and liberty and the records don’t merit such careless handling.” IV. The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by the CPIO have been seen. It is observed that the CPIO, CIC has provided information as per provisions of the RTI Act 2005. 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. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. V. The appeal is being disposed of accordingly. NA
2223 CICOM/A/E/21/00053 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-03-2021 I. The applicant vide online application No. CICOM/R/E/21/00117 dated 27.01.2021 has requested the following information. “Would you please like to inform: the ingredients of dereliction of duty under right to information act?” II. Shri Ram Kumar, CPIO-RTI Cell, CIC has given the following reply dated 01.02.2021. “Queries cannot be replied under RTI Act 2005. You may go through the RTI Act, 2005 and RTI Rules, 2012 available on public domain. You may also note that CIC is the second appellate authority for the RTIs filed with Ministries/Departments under Central Government and UTs of India.” III. In the First Appeal dated 28.03.2021 the Appellant has submitted as under. “No Response within the Time Limit.” IV. The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by the CPIO have been examined. The reply sent by CPIO, CIC is as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. 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. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. V. The appeal is being disposed of accordingly. NA
2224 CICOM/A/E/21/00051 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-03-2021 1. अपीलकर्ता द्वारा ऑनलाइन आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/00246 के माध्य म से मांगी गई सूचनाओं के प्रतिउत्तइर में केन्द्रीिय जन सूचना अधिकारी (प्रशासन अनुभाग एवं केन्द्री य रजिस्ट्रीन-।।) द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचनाओं से असंतुष्टन होने के कारण प्रथम अपील दाखिल की गई है । 2. आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/00246 के माध्य म से केन्द्रीरय सूचना आयोग में रिटायर्ड कंसलटेंट को CPIO बनाए जाने एवं उप पर जुर्माना लगाए जाने की स्थिकति में जुर्माना वसूलने की प्रक्रिया से संबंधित 5 बिंदुओं पर सूचनाएं मांगी गई थी । 3. आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/00246 के बिंदु सं. 1, 3 एवं 4 के संदर्भ केन्द्रीरय जन सूचना अधिकारी (प्रशासन अनुभाग) एवं बिंदु सं. 2 एवं 5 के संदर्भ में केन्द्री य जन सूचना अधिकारी (केन्द्री य रजिस्ट्री -।।) द्वारा बिंदुवार सूचना प्रदान कर दी गई है । 4. आर.टी.आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/00246 के बिंदु सं. 1, 2 एवं 5 के तहत प्रदान की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार ही है, यहॉं यह उल्लेतखनीय है कि सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 की धारा 2 (च) के प्रावधानों के अनुसार एक जन सूचना अधिकारी केवल संबंधित लोक प्राधिकरण के रिकार्ड में एक सामग्री के रूप में उपलब्धू सूचना ही प्रदान कर सकता है, सूचनाएं एकत्र करना या निर्मित करना जन सूचना अधिकारी के दायित्वच से परे है । परन्तु, आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/00246 के बिंदु सं. 3 एवं 4 के प्रतिउत्ततर में केन्द्री य जन सूचना अधिकारी (प्रशासन) द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के अनुसार नहीं है । अत: प्रशासन अनुभाग के वर्तमान केन्द्रीनय जन सूचना अधिकारी को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि इस आदेश की प्राप्तिन के दस दिनों के भीतर आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/00246 के बिंदु सं. 3 एवं 4 के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पुन: स्पष्ट सूचना प्रेषित की जाए ।   NA
2225 CICOM/A/E/21/00052 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-03-2021 1. अपीलकर्ता द्वारा ऑनलाइन आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/00263 के माध्‍यम से मांगी गई सूचनाओं के प्रतिउत्‍तर में केन्‍द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (प्रशासन अनुभाग) द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचनाओं से असंतुष्‍ट होने के कारण प्रथम अपील दाखिल की गई है । 2. आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/00263 के माध्‍यम से निम्‍नलिखित सूचना मांगी गई थी:- 1. 01-05-2015 से लेकर इस RTI आवेदन का जवाब प्राप्त/ होने तक के दौरान CIC मे CIC प्रशासन दारा डेपुटेसन के आधार पर कार्यरत श्री कृष्णज अवतार तलवार, Deputy Secretary के डेपुटेसन के Tenure में पाँच वर्ष से अधिक समय समाप्ता होने के बाद किन नियमों के तहत कितनी बार बढ़ोतरी की गई है। 2. 01-05-2015 से लेकर इस RTI आवेदन का जवाब प्राप्तस होने तक के दौरान CIC में डेपुटेसन के आधार पर कार्यरत श्री कृष्णद अवतार तलवार, Deputy Secretary के ख़िलाफ़ CIC, CVC, DOPT, M/o PPG & P, CIC, M/o Finance तथा D/o Expenditure को कितनी शिकायतें प्राप्त हई हैं तथा प्राप्त शिकायतों के आधार पर संबंधित कार्यालय/विभाग/ मंत्रालय दारा की गई सभी कार्यवाहियों का सम्पू्र्ण ब्यौेरा (Complete details) प्राप्तट शिकायतों की स्थिाति (Status) सहित प्रदान कीजिए। 3. 01-05-2015 से लेकर इस RTI आवेदन का जवाब प्राप्तर होने तक के दौरान CIC मे CIC प्रशासन दारा डेपुटेसन के आधार पर कार्यरत श्री कृष्णज अवतार तलवार, Deputy Secretary के डेपुटेसन के Tenure मे 25-05-2021 से आगे या इसके बाद बढ़ोतरी करने के लिए CIC, DOPT, M/o PPG & P, D/o Expenditure/ CGA Office तथा M/o Finance के बीच किए गए सभी संबंधित पत्राचारों (Correspondence) तथा फ़ाइल नोटिंग की प्रमाणित प्रतियॉं प्रदान कीजिए। 3. संबंधित केन्‍द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (प्रशासन) द्वारा बिंदुवार निम्‍नलिखित सूचना प्रदान की गई है:- 1. श्री कृष्‍ण अवतार तलवार, उप सचिव, CIC के डेपुटेशन Tenure में 5 वर्ष से अधिक समय के लिए बढ़ोतरी DoPT द्वारा निर्धारित नियमानुसार की गई । 2 एवं 3. मांगी गई सूचना व्‍यक्‍तिगत सूचना से संबंधित है अत: यह प्रदान नहीं की जा सकती है । 4. अपीलकर्ता ने प्रथम अपील में बिंदु सं. 1 के तहत प्रदान की गई सूचना के संदर्भ में उल्‍लेख किया है कि कार्यकाल में कितनी बार बढ़ोत्‍तरी की गई यह नहीं बताया गया है तथा बिंदु सं. 2 एवं 3 के संदर्भ में भी व्‍यक्‍तिगत सूचना बताए जाने पर अपीकर्ता ने आपत्‍ति जताई है । 5. 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/21/00263 के प्रतिउत्‍तर में केन्‍द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (प्रशासन) द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना पूर्ण नहीं है और एवं सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार सही नहीं है । अत: प्रशासन अनुभाग के वर्तमान केन्‍द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि इस आदेश की प्राप्‍ति के दस दिनों के भीतर आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/00263 के माध्‍यम से मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर आयोग में उपलब्‍ध्‍ सूचना अपीलकर्त्‍ता को पुनः प्रेषित की जाए एवं बिंदु संख्या 2 के माध्यम से अन्य विभागों से सम्बंधित मांगी गई सूचनाएँ हेतु आवेदन सम्बंधित विभाग को अग्रसारित किया जाए। NA
2226 CICOM/A/E/21/00050 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-03-2021 1. अपीलकर्ता द्वारा ऑनलाइन आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/00233 के बिंदु सं. 3 के तहत केन्द्रीतय जन सूचना अधिकारी (प्रशासन) द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना के विरुद्ध प्रथम अपील दाखिल की गई है । 2. आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/00233 के बिंदु सं. 3 के माध्य म से निम्नेलिखित सूचना मांगी गई थी:- वर्तमान समय में CIC में अनुबंध के आधार पर सेक्स/न ऑफिसर (रिटायर्ड कंसलटेंट) की भर्ती के लिए निर्धारित न्यू तम Education Qualification तथा Work Experience का उल्ले ख कीजिए । 3. संबंधित केन्द्री य जन सूचना अधिकारी (प्रशासन) द्वारा आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/00233 के बिंदु सं. 3 के संदर्भ में निम्निलिखित सूचना प्रदान की गई है:- वर्तमान समय में CIC में अनुबंध के आधार पर Section Officer की भर्ती के लिए किसी व्यसक्तिI को केन्द्री य सरकार में Section Officer (Level -8) के पद से सेवा निवृत्तय और प्रशासन/खातों के क्षेत्र में अनुभव होना चाहिए 4. अपीलकर्ता ने ऑनलाइन प्रथम अपील में उल्ले ख किया है कि ‘बिंदु सं. 3 के तहत अधूरी तथा अस्पअष्ट सूचना प्रदान की गई है, सेक्सिन ऑफिसर (रिटायर्ड कंसलटेंट) की भर्ती के लिए निर्धारित न्यू्तम Education Qualification तथा Work Experience का उल्ले ख नहीं किया गया है’ तथा वांछित सूचना प्रदान करने का अनुरोध किया है । 5. आर.टी.आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/00233 के बिंदु सं. 3 के प्रतिउत्तकर में केन्द्री य जन सूचना अधिकारी (प्रशासन) द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार ही है, यहॉं यह उल्लेंखनीय है कि सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 की धारा 2 (च) के प्रावधानों के अनुसार एक जन सूचना अधिकारी केवल संबंधित लोक प्राधिकरण के रिकार्ड में एक सामग्री के रूप में उपलब्ध् सूचना ही प्रदान कर सकता है, सूचनाएं एकत्र करना या निर्मित करना जन सूचना अधिकारी के दायित्वक से परे है । केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना तथ्यानुसार है, इसलिए इस मामले में प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है । NA
2227 CICOM/A/E/21/00048 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 21-03-2021 I. The applicant has requested the following information vide application No. CICOM/R/E/21/00204 dated 18.02.2021. 1. Kindly provide soft copies of all documents contained in files of CIC in which it has been decided by the CIC that all the complaints and second appeals filed by the applicant, shall be heard by Shri Neeraj Kumar Gupta, the Information Commissioner of CIC. 2. Kindly provide soft copies of all documents contained in files of CIC dealing with the second appeal and complaint lodged by the applicant, before CIC in which the notices of hearing have been issued or/and being issued for hearing in the months of March, April and May by Shri Neeraj Kumar Gupta. II. Shri S.C.Sharma, CPIO, CIC has given the following reply dated 08.03.2021. Point-1: Copy of noting in this regard is enclosed. Point-2: Information in the manner sought by the applicant i.e. regarding sharing of documents-copies of appeals/complaints in which notices of hearing have been/are being issued for hearing in the months of March, April and May, is not maintained. III. In the First Appeal dated 21.03.2021 the Appellant has submitted as under. “The reply to point no. 2 of CPIO is false and motivated to harass the applicant because being the deputy registrar of CIC CPIO Shri SC Sharma is well aware of the fact that documents denied by him are maintained by CIC and available in CIC in soft format. Earlier Shri AK Assija Deputy Registrar had already supplied soft copies of three files related to second appeals and complaints. Thus soft copies of such documents are available with CIC. It is therefore requested to allow my appeal and direct the CPIO to provide complete information free of charge.” IV. The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by the CPIO have been seen. It is observed that the CPIO has not provided complete information/ documents as sought for by the applicant in respect of point-2. Therefore, the CPIO is hereby directed to provide the requisite information as per provisions of the RTI Act 2005 within 10 days from the date of this order. V. The appeal is being disposed of accordingly. NA
2228 CICOM/A/E/21/00047 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 18-03-2021 I. The applicant vide application No. CICOM/R/E/21/00227 dated 05.03.2021 has requested the following information. 1. What are the efforts office of CIC is taking to make RTI more effective for public good in upcoming five years and efforts to reduce the citing of copy/paste reason for rejection of RTI even same was allowed in similar category of cases? 2. Why RTI CCITJ/R/T/20/00179 & CCITJ/R/T/20/00185 and its appeal CCITJ/A/E/20/00096 not answered? What was the action taken for not replying the RTI in time? 3. Is there different rule for different person in this country for replying RTI? 4. Is there any accountability for rejecting the RTI? Is there any one monitoring the record of the reasons RTI is not answered for documented record even in cases involving Lakhs/Crores of Tax fraud? If not, please mention the reason RTI was introduced? 5. Is there any record of numbers of RTI rejected citing various reason? If yes, please tell the section under which maximum RTI is rejected? 6. Is there any method of timely disposal of RTI on online server? II. Shri Ram Kumar, CPIO, CIC has given the following reply dated 15.03.2021. “Point 1. Query has been raised which dehors section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. Point 2. The information sought does not pertains to CIC. Point 3. Same as point 1 above. Point 4. Same as point 1 above. Shri Devender Kumar, CPIO, CIC has given following reply dated 18.03.2021 Point 5: Table 2.7 under the heading “Sections of RTI Act invoked for rejecting application” in Chapter-2 of Annual Report either can be viewed or downloaded from CIC website link “https://cic.gov.in/reports/37” Point 6: This subject do not pertains to M&R Section.” III. In the First Appeal dtd.18.03.2021 the Appellant has submitted as under. “Provided Incomplete, Misleading or False Information. The requisite information is not provided. Requesting to provide the information in respect of point 1 to 4 also.” IV. The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by the CPIO have been examined. The replies sent by CPIOs of CIC are as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. 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. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. V. The appeal is being disposed of accordingly. NA
2229 CICOM/A/E/21/00046 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 16-03-2021 I. The applicant vide online application No.CICOM/R/E/21/00182 dated 25.02.2021 has requested the following information while referring Commission’s decision No. CIC/CBECE/C/2019/123502 dated 18.01.2021. “In the para 6 of the order, it is mentioned that the Commission is of the view that the respondent could have filed the first appeal with the FAA if he thinks that he has sent inadvertent reply to the applicant but the then PIO instead of exercising this provision, has reversed his own order. It is requested to inform me the basis / specific provision of the RTI act, 2005 under which the CPIO / PIO has to follow this procedure.” II. Shri S.C.Sharma, CPIO, CIC has given the following reply dated 08.03.2021. “The query raised by the applicant is in the nature of clarification which requires interpretation. Therefore, it is not covered under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.” III. In the online First Appeal dated 16.03.2021 the Appellant has submitted as under. “Refused access to Information Requested”. “On plain and simple reading of the information sought under the RTI Act, 2005; it is evident that, no clarification has been sought from the Hon’ble Information Commissioner in respect of his Order dated 18.01.2021. The Hon’ble Information Commissioner has stated a particular procedure pertaining to CPIO / PIO in Para 6 in his Order dated 18.01.2021. It must have been based on some profound citation or provision of the RTI Act, 2005. The same is not mentioned in his Order dated 18.01.2021.” IV. The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by the CPIO have been examined. The CPIO, CIC has replied as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. 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 the FAA in this matter. V. The appeal is being disposed of accordingly. NA
2230 CICOM/A/E/21/00042 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-03-2021 1. अपीलकर्ता द्वारा ऑनलाइन आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/00184 के माध्यम से मांगी गई सूचना के प्रतिउत्तर में केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (DR to IC - VN) द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना के विरुद्ध प्रथम अपील दाखिल की गई है । 2. आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/00184 के माध्यम से निम्नलिखित सूचनाएं मांगी गई थी:- 1. मैंने 19.08.2019 को द्वितीय अपील किया था जिसका फाइल नं. CIC/IARMY/A/2019/139868, डायरी नं. 139868 है । अभी तक कोई भी समाधान नहीं हो पाया है । मुझे बताया जाए कि मेरी अपील का नम्बर कब आएगा । 2. मुझे बताया जाए कि दो वर्ष से ज्यादा समय हो चुका है इस अपील पर अभी तक एक्शन क्यों नहीं हुआ । 3. संबंधित केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (DR to IC - VN) द्वारा बिंदुवार निम्नलिखित सूचना प्रदान की गई है:- 1. It is stated that the hearing of cases at the Commission takes place in chronological order. Accordingly, your case will be listed for hearing in due course. It may be stated that presently the case filed in March/April, 2019 are being listed for hearing in the Registry of IC (VN). A notice is served to both the parties as and when date of hearing is fixed, giving details of date and time of hearing, venue of hearing, etc. It is not possible to provide exact date of the hearing. 2. Due to large number of cases pending for hearing your case has not yet been listed for hearing. 4. अपीलकर्ता ने प्रथम अपील में उल्लेख किया है कि ‘मुझे बताया गया कि आयोग में मामलों की सुनवाई कालानुक्रमिक क्रम में होती है, लेकिन फाइल न. CIC/IARMY/A/2019/159867, नाम अकबर अहमद का क्रम मेरी फाइल नं. CIC/IARMY/A/2019/139868 से पहले कैसे आ गया’ । 5. 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/21/00184 के प्रतिउत्‍तर में केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (DR to IC - VN) द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार ही है । उल्लेाखनीय है कि सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 की धारा 2 (च) के प्रावधानों के अनुसार एक जन सूचना अधिकारी केवल संबंधित लोक प्राधिकरण के रिकार्ड में एक सामग्री के रूप में उपलब्ध सूचना ही प्रदान कर सकता है, सूचनाएं एकत्र करना या निर्मित करना जन सूचना अधिकारी के दायित्व से परे है । अत: केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना तथ्यात्मक है और इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है । NA