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
2231 CICOM/A/E/21/00041 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-03-2021 I. The applicant vide online applications 1) CICOM/R/E/21/00054 & 2) CICOM/R/E/ 21/00133 dated 15.01.2021 & 02.02.2021 respectively had mentioned that pursuant to his second appeal order No.CIC/NDMCN/A/2018/169592 dated 07.10.2020 of Shri Y.K.Sinha, CIC, a hearing was held by Director-Estate II (NDMC)/FAA and passed a Decision on 20.11.2020. Aggrieved by the FAA decision, the applicant sent submissions online to CIC vide diary No.693509 dated 24.11.2020 and a subsequent letter vide diary No.697316 dated 23.12.2020 with a request to pass further needful orders in view of the submissions. II. Information sought by the applicant and the reply/information furnished by Shri R.P. Grover, CPIO, CIC are as under. 1) RTI dated 15.01.2021 “….After sending online submissions on 24.11.2020 and a letter on 23.12.2020, no information with regard to the decision taken/order passed in this regard has been received. It is therefore requested that needful information in this regard may kindly be provided.” RTI Reply dated 29.01.2021 “a) The applicant has not requested for any specific information in the RTI application dtd.15.01.2021. b) As per record available in the appeal file no. CIC/NDMCN/A/2018/169592, no action has been taken on diary No.697316 dated 23.12.2020.” 2) RTI dated 02.02.2021 “……. If no action had been taken in respect of my application dated 23.12.2020 (Diary No.693716) as mentioned in the aforesaid reply in that case the needful information ought to have been provided keeping in view the procedure, which is being followed for taking up the further proceedings in the matter and passing the final order that is required to be passed in the given matter/appeal to give it finality, namely, when it may be taken up for the said purpose, whether apart from the submissions already made by me in the matter vide Diary No.693509 and 693716, I am required to do any other compliance in the matter and such other relevant information, which provides the complete picture in this regard, which could have been provided but has not been provided giving rise to the avoidable further proceedings in the matter resulting in avoidable loss of governmental resources and that of the applicant. Without prejudice to the foregoing, I humbly request that I may kindly be provided information in respect of the matters as aforesaid.” RTI Reply dated 02.03.2021 “You did not specify in your application which information is required. It is mentioned that kindly provide information in respect of the matter as aforesaid. Further you had filed another RTI on the reply to your previous RTI instead of filing the First Appeal as per RTI guidelines. As such whatever undersigned understand your RTI following information is provided. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… In terms of the CIC order, FAA vide order 13.11.2020 passed speaking order after giving opportunity to both the parties on 04.11.2020 and considering your submission dated 03.11.2020. Further, it is clarified that CIC order dated 07.10.2020 was final and not interim one. As FAA has complied with CIC direction as such no further action is pending with us and no action has been taken on your letters.” III. In the online First Appeal, the appellant has submitted a Memorandum of appeal mentioning Dy. Director (Estate-II)/The CPIO as Respondent. The Appellant prayed that the submissions made on 24.11.2020 be considered and further needful orders passed. IV. The First Appeal petition, RTI applications and replies given by the CPIO have been examined. The RTI application dated 15.01.2020 submitted by the appellant had been suitably replied to on 29.01.2021. After receiving the reply, the appellant preferred another RTI application dated 02.02.2021 without specifying the information required, instead of submitting First Appeal. The second RTI application had also been appropriately answered to by the CPIO as per provisions of RTI Act 2005. It is pertinent to mention here that the CPIO can only provide information as is available and existing and held. 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 the RTI applications. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. V. The appeal is being disposed of accordingly. NA
2232 CICOM/A/E/21/00040 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-03-2021 I. The applicant vide online RTI application No. CICOM/R/E/21/00189 dated 27.02.2021 had asked the following information: “1. Chronological and consolidated single list of cases pending for hearing before Chief Information Commissioner as on 28/02/2021 but filed up to 03/03/2020. List for cases filed after 03/03/2020 not required. 2. Priority in hearing is being given by the commission to cases carrying court orders. Details of procedure for requesting for priority hearing.” II. Shri SK Chitkara, CPIO has given reply on 08.03.2021 as under. The pending list of Second Appeals and Complaints is available on the website of this Commission at www.cic.gov.in under the heading MIS Reports. You can see the pending lists separately for Complaints and Second Appeals as available on the above website by selecting the Chief IC and date as on 28.02.2021. Regarding procedure for early hearings, the Appellant can make request for early hearing by giving justification. The request is submitted to Chief Information Commissioner/Information Commissioner for consideration. Previous reply dated 14/07/2020 is given below.” III. Grounds for First Appeal:- “1. The CPIO instead of providing what was requested i.e. certified HARD copies has advised the appellant to refer to MIS Reports. This is not a proper compliance to the RTI request. (Note- there is no option in MIS to get a print-out or to save the list as pdf ) 2. The list generated in MIS Reports is not a Consolidated list of Complaints and Appeals. An earlier reply of CPIO dated 14/07/2020 says that cases are heard in chronological basis irrespective of whether it is a Complaint or an Appeal. IV. Decision with reasons:- The First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by the CPIO have been examined. As per decision of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors vs. Dharemendra Kumar Garg & Ors [W.P.(C) 11271/2009], 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’. The appeal for “certified hard copies” is beyond the request made in RTI application dated 27.02.2021 wherein only a list of cases pending for hearing before CIC as on 28.02.2021, has been asked for. Hence, the reply provided by the CPIO, CIC is as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. V. The appeal is being disposed of accordingly. NA
2233 CICOM/A/P/21/00052 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-03-2021 Please see the file. download pdf
2234 CICOM/A/P/21/00049 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-03-2021 Please see the file. download pdf
2235 CICOM/A/P/21/00050 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-03-2021 Please see the file. download pdf
2236 CICOM/A/P/21/00051 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-03-2021 Please see the file. download pdf
2237 CICOM/A/E/21/00038 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-03-2021 1. अपीलकर्ता द्वारा ऑनलाइन आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/00176 के बिंदु सं. 4 के माध्यम से मांगी गई सूचना के प्रतिउतर में केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (एम.आर. अनुभाग) द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना के विरुद्ध प्रथम अपील दाखिल की गई है । अपीलकर्ता द्वारा प्रथम अपील में उल्लेख किया गया है कि केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रदान की गई है सूचना पूर्णतया असंगत और भ्रामक है । 2. आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/00176 के बिंदु सं. 4 के माध्यरम से निम्न लिखित सूचना मांगी गई थी:- ‘केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग जिन प्रकरणों की सुनवाई पूरी बेंच के कोरम से करता है, उन प्रकरणों की मेरिट तय करने का क्या आधार (Ground) है । इस संबंध में आयोग के पास कोई निर्णायक दस्तावेज है तो उपलब्ध करवाएं’ । 3. संबंधित केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (एम.आर. अनुभाग) द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना में उल्लेख किया गया है कि ‘ऐसी कोई जानकारी मौजूद नहीं है’ । 4. 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/21/00176 के बिंदु सं. 4 के प्रतिउत्तर में केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (एम.आर. अनुभाग) द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार ही है । उल्लेखनीय 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 दायित्वा 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
2238 CICOM/A/P/21/00048 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-03-2021 Please see the file. download pdf
2239 CICOM/A/E/21/00032 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-03-2021 1. अपीलकर्ता द्वारा ऑनलाइन आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/00118 के माध्यम से मांगी गई सूचनाओं के प्रतिउत्तर में केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (विधि अनुभाग) द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना के विरुद्ध प्रथम अपील दाखिल की गई है । अपीलकर्ता द्वारा प्रथम अपील में उल्लेख किया गया है कि ‘श्रीमती सोनिया द्वारा गलत तथा भ्रामक जानकारी प्रदान की गई है’ । 2. आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/00118 के माध्यम से निम्नलिखित सूचनाएं मांगी गई थी:- बिंदु सं. 1 2007 से लेकर आजतक के दौरान CIC को भारत देश के सभी राज्यों के माननीय हाई कोर्ट (दिल्लीी को छोडकर) में कुल कितने Case में Respondent बनाया गया है तथा CIC द्वारा सभी राज्यों के माननीय हाई कोर्ट (दिल्ली को छोड़कर) में कुल कितने Case को defend किया गया है । कृपया केवल Case की कुल संख्या वर्ष के अनुसार (Year-wise) अलग अलग प्रदन कीजिए, Court Cases की Detail या List नहीं प्रदान करें । बिंदु सं. 2 2007 से लेकर आजतक के दौरान CIC को भारत देश के सभी राज्योंं के माननीय हाई कोर्ट (दिल्ली को छोडकर) में कुल कितने पैनल काउन्सिल (CGSC) का वकालतनामा कुल कितने केसों में लगवाया गया है । कृपया केवल पैनल काउन्सिल (CGSC) तथा Court cases की कुल संख्या वर्ष के अनुसार (Year-wise) अलग अलग प्रदान कीजिए, पैनल काउन्सिल (CGSC) तथा Court cases की Detail या List नहीं प्रदान करें । 3. संबंधित जन सूचना अधिकारी (विधि अनुभाग) द्वारा निम्नलिखित सूचनाएं प्रदान की गई है:- बिंदु सं. 1 एवं 2 - आपके द्वारा मांगी गई सूचना का कोई संगठित रिकार्ड उपलब्ध नहीं है । यद्यपि आप सक्षम अधिकारी के अनुमोदन से केस फाइल देख सकते हैं । 4. आर.टी.आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील आवेदन का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/00118 के प्रतिउत्तर में केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (विधि अनुभाग) द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार ही है । उल्लेखनीय 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 तथ्यात्माक है और इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्त्क्षेप की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है । NA
2240 CICOM/A/P/21/00046 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-03-2021 Please see the file. download pdf