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
2281 CICOM/A/E/21/00015 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-02-2021 I. RTI Application No.CICOM/R/E/21/00107 dated 25.01.2021:- The Applicant has requested to attest the attached information that he collected from the link “Decisions” available on the website of CIC. II. CPIO Reply Dated 01.02.2021:- The information available on the Central Information Commission website is correct. The information as shown in decision section is available for both retired and serving CICs/ICs. III. Ground of First Appeal:- Dissatisfied with the reply, sent by the CPIO, the Appellant has filed First Appeal stating, “the PIO did not see my RTI application properly, I have collected the details from the website of CIC. As per the website for Mr. Shailesh Gandhi only 54 decisions are show the PIO is saying that it is correct. How this is possible? As per PIO entire tenure of Mr. Shailesh Gandhi disposed only of 54 decisions. Is this correct? Very bad now FAA should check and do them justice.” IV. Decision with reasons:- On perusal of RTI Application, the reply sent by the CPIO and the First Appeal made by him, it is observed that the contention of the Appellant in his First Appeal is not as per the information asked for by him through his present RTI Application and the reply sent by the CPIO. The issue in the present case is, whether the reply sent by the CPIO to the RTI query of the appellant is correct as per the provision of RTI Act or not. Issue is not related to the number of cases disposed off by a former IC of CIC. However, it is pertinent to mention that, 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 undersigned observed the reply sent by the CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the provisions of 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
2282 CICOM/A/E/21/00012 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-01-2021 I. The appellant had earlier sent an email on 10.11.2020, inter alia, to Secretary, CIC regarding his grievance on refusal of information by International Indian Schools, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In his RTI application CICOM/R/E/ 21/00069 dated 17.01.2021, while referring the said email, he has sought copy of comments or action taken report, if any. II. The CPIO Shri Ram Kumar has taken assistance from the office of Secretary, CIC u/s 5(4) of RTI Act, 2005 and forwarded the reply wherein it was mentioned as under. “In this regard, it is informed that no such information is available in this office.” III. The appellant in his First Appeal dated 30.01.2021 has mentioned that the requested information, related to action on his email, has not been provided. IV. 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. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the provisions of 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
2283 CICOM/A/E/21/00011 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-01-2021 1. अपीलकर्ता द्वारा दाखिल ऑनलाइन आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/00013 जिसके माध्युम से भारतीय राष्ट्रीय राजमार्ग प्राधिकरण के PIU MEERUT कार्यालय से संबंधित सूचनाएं मांगी गई थी, को भारतीय राष्ट्रीय राजमार्ग प्राधिकरण कार्यालय को अग्रसारित किए जाने के विरुद्ध प्रथम अपील दाखिल की गई है । 2. प्रथम अपील आवेदन में अपीलकर्ता ने उल्लेणख किया है कि PIU MEERUT के लोक सूचना अधिकारी अपनी पोल खुल जाने के डर से सही जानकारी नहीं देगे, इसलिए मांगी गई जानकारी केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग में स्थित लोक सूचना अधिकारी के द्वारा ही उपलब्ध करवाए जाने का अनुरोध किया है । 3. आर.टी.आई. आवेदन एवं प्रथम अपील आवेदन का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि आर.टी.आई. आवेदन के माध्यम से मांगी गई सूचना केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग से नहीं बल्कि किसी अन्य. लोक प्राधिकरण से संबंधित है । तद्नुसार, केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी, केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग ने सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा 6 (3) के अतंर्गत प्रार्थी का आर.टी.आई. आवेदन उन्हें अंतरित कर दिया है, जिससे सूचना निकटता से संबंधित है । उल्लेखनीय है कि सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के अंतर्गत केन्द्रीाय सूचना आयोग द्वितीय अपीलीय अधिकरण है और इसका कार्य इसके समक्ष दाखिल द्वितीय अपीलों/शिकायतों का निस्तारण करते हुए संबंधित लोक प्राधिकरण से सूचना प्रदान करवाना है । सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा 6 (1) के अंतर्गत आर.टी.आई. आवेदन उसी लोक प्राधिकरण को दाखिल करना होता है, जिससे सूचना संबंधित है । उपरोक्तानुसार, केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा लिया गया निर्णय अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप है और प्रस्तुत मामले में प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप की आवश्यकता नहीं है । NA
2284 CICOM/A/P/21/00014 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-01-2021 Please see the file. download pdf
2285 CICOM/A/P/21/00015 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-01-2021 Please see the file. download pdf
2286 CICOM/A/E/21/00010 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-01-2021 1. अपीलकर्ता द्वारा ऑनलाइन आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/00011 के बिंदु सं. 1 के प्रतिउत्तार में केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना के विरुद्ध प्रथम अपील दाखिल की गई है । आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/21/00011 के बिंदु सं.1 के माध्य्म से भारत देश के सभी राज्यों के माननीय हाई कोर्ट (दिल्ली को छोड़ कर) के पैनल काउन्सिल की नियुक्ति एवं उनके बिलों के भगुतान से संबंधित सूचना मांगी गई थी । 2. आर.टी.आई. आवेदन के बिंदु सं. 1 के संदर्भ में सुश्री सोनिया, केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा निम्नलिखित सूचना प्रदान की गई है:- “CIC में श्री अजीत कुमार बसंत राव सोनटके, Director (Law) द्वारा भारत देश के सभी राज्यों के माननीय हाई कोर्ट (दिल्ली को छोड़ कर) के पैनल काउन्सिल को किस विधिक आधार पर Appoint किया गया है जिसका कोई रिकार्ड उपलब्ध नहीं है । भारत देश के सभी राज्यों के माननीय हाई कोर्ट के पैनल काउन्सिल के बिलों का भुगतान Ministry of Law and Justice, Department of Legal Affairs के Office Memorandum No. 26(1)/2014/judl Dated 01.10.2015 के अनुसार किया जाता है” । 3. आर.टी.आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील के अवलोकन से स्‍पष्‍ट है कि प्रार्थी द्वारा वांछित सूचना के संदर्भ में उन्हें तथ्‍यात्‍मक वस्तुस्थिति से अवगत करा दिया गया है । उल्लेीखनीय है कि सूचना अधिकार अधिनियम 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 । 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
2287 CICOM/A/P/21/00012 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-01-2021 Please see the file. download pdf
2288 CICOM/A/P/21/00013 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-01-2021 Please see the file. download pdf
2289 CICOM/A/E/21/00008 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-01-2021 I. RTI APPLICATION The applicant has referred an email dt.16.11.2020 of Shri Ullas Jain addressed to Secretary-CIC and JS-CIC regarding grievance No. DOPTAT/ E/2019/04441 about monitoring of recovery of penalties imposed by CIC on default CPIOs. Out of the 9 RTI points answered, the Appellant submitted Appeal against the information furnished for point-1 which is reproduced below. 1. Copy of action taken by Secretary-CIC on the above email. II. RTI REPLY “It is intimated that letter No. CIC/PENALTY/2018/CR-II/66 dated 02.04.2018 was sent to Secretary-DOPAT by Secretary-CIC for ‘advice as how to deal with such non-recoveries as no powers of write off are available to the Commission under the Rules” and letter No.CIC/ PENALTY/2018/CR-II/66 dated 14.06.2018 was also sent to Secretary-DOPAT by Additional Secretary-CIC for “Monitoring of recovery of penalty imposed on the defaulting CPIO’s by the Central Information Commission thereof. No further information/record is available.” II. FIRST APPEAL The appellant has submitted Appeal dt.24.01.2021 against answer furnished for point-1 with a request to direct concerned CPIO to provide clear information. III. FAA DECISION 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. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 with reference to information provided by the office of Secretary-CIC. Shri Ram Kumar, CPIO is however directed to revisit his reply and provide clear answer to the appellant on Point-1. IV. The appeal is being disposed of accordingly. NA
2290 CICOM/A/E/21/00009 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-01-2021 I. In his RTI application No.CIC/R/E/20/01043 dated 17.12.2020, the applicant has referred an email dt.16.11.2020 of Shri Ullas Jain addressed to Secretary-CIC and JS-CIC regarding grievance No.DOPTAT/E/2019/04441 about monitoring of recovery of penalties imposed by CIC on default CPIOs. Out of the 9 RTI points answered, the Appellant submitted Appeal against the information furnished for point-7. The information sought and its reply are reproduced below. RTI Point-7:- “Number of pages of authority letters submitted by representatives of respondent PIOs along with names of representatives prior to hearing of the following appeals – (a) CIC/DIRED/A/2017/163047 (b) CIC/DIRED/A/2017/183485 (c) CIC/DIRED/A/2017/165315 (d) CIC/GNCTD/C/2017/183486 (e) CIC/OTDCM/A/2017/160481 (f) CIC/DIRED/A/2017/176192 (g) CIC/DIRED/C/2018/183483 (h) CIC/DIRED/A/2018/101320 (i) CIC/DIRED/A/2017/178424 RTI Reply to Point-7:- “No authority letters available in the concerned files, however the name of the representative attended the hearing is as under:- For (a)(c)(f)&(i): Dr Veer Singh and Atul Jaiswal. For (b)(d)(g)&(h) : S/Shri Harkishan, Naren Gupta, HP Singh, Vinay Chaudhary, OP Anand, Subhash Aggarwal, heha Shanker, Deepak Rawat, Tapeshwar, Baldev Singh & Manoj Kumar. For (e) : Shri S.Sai and Subhash Aggarwal, S Sondhi and Pradeep.” II. GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL:- The appellant vide Appeal dt.24.01.2021 has mentioned that the reply of the CPIO is incomplete, misleading and failed to mention whether the authority letters collected from the representatives of the PIO have gone missing or were not collected from the representatives at the time of hearing. III. FAA DECISION:- Shri Ram Prakash Grover, CPIO is directed to revisit his reply and furnish information as asked by the appellant. IV. The appeal is being disposed of accordingly. NA