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
2311 CICOM/A/P/20/00124 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-12-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
2312 CICOM/A/P/20/00126 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-12-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
2313 CICOM/A/P/20/00123 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-12-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
2314 CICOM/A/P/20/00125 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-12-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
2315 CICOM/A/E/20/00253 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-12-2020 I. The Appellant, through his online RTI application No. CICOM/R/E/20/00976 dated 23.11.2020, has asked for the following information:- “(1) Is File No. CIC/UODEL/A/2020/668570 coming under the urgent hearing as the basis of registered second appeal/complaint in CIC? Give me answer only in Yes or No ? (2) If point no. 1 answer is Yes, then give me base/fact/condition and clarification to prove your answer Yes. (3) If point no. 1 answer is No, that give me base/fact/condition and clarification to prove your answer No.” II. CPIO Shri C.A. Joseph has replied to the Appellant vide letter dated 22.12.2020 as under:- “1. No such information exists on the portal of CIC. 2&3. Not applicable.” III. The Appellant in his First Appeal dated 25.12.2020 has mentioned that he has not satisfied with the answer of the CPIO. IV. On verification from the CIC website about the status of the case, it is noticed that the hearing was held on 13.01.2021. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA
2316 CICOM/A/E/20/00251 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-12-2020 1. The Appellant, through his online RTI application No. CICOM/R/E/20/01029 dated 12.12.2020, has asked for the following information:- “To receive the applicant’s copy of the inquiry report made by the Central Vigilance Inquiry Officer on the complaint of a violation of government rules made by the central government employee as per the order of the Central Vigilance Commission New Delhi along with the subsection of the rules mentioned in the Right to Information Act 2005 be provided.” 2. CPIO Shri Ram Kumar has replied to the Appellant vide letter dated 22.12.2020:- “Central Information Commission does not have the information. You may approach the concerned Public Authority. Central Information Commission is the second appellate authority for the RTIs filed with Ministries/Departments under Central Government and UTs of India.” 3. The Appellant, in his First Appeal dated 24.12.2020, has mentioned that it was CPIO responsibility to transfer the application to the concerned public authority under Sec.6(3) of the RTI Act 2005. 4. On perusal of the RTI request, reply of the CPIO and the appellant’s contention in the First Appeal, it is noticed that the appellant has not specified the documents/information required by him. Therefore, it would not be possible either to provide appropriate information or forward u/s 6(3) to the concerned public authority. Hence, the reply sent by Shri Ram Kumar, 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. 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. Accordingly, the First Appeal is disposed of. NA
2317 CICOM/A/E/20/00250 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 22-12-2020 1. The Appellant, through his online RTI application No. CICOM/R/E/20/01005 dated 04.12.2020, has asked for the following information:- “If I want daily progress report through RTI on my at least 15-days old complaint, then according to RTI rule, should the relevant authority give it to me or not.” 2. CPIO Shri Ram Kumar has replied to the Appellant on vide letter dated 14.12.2020:- “Queries have been raised which dehors Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.” 3. The Appellant has mentioned that the CPIO should give due reason of rejection of giving sought-information. 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. Hence, the reply sent by Shri Ram Kumar, 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. NA
2318 CICOM/A/E/20/00249 MEENA BALIMANE SHARMA 20-12-2020 1. अपीलकर्ता द्वारा ऑनलाइन आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/20/00996 के माध्यम से निम्नलिखित सूचना मांगी गई थी:- 1. 01 NA
2319 CICOM/A/E/20/00248 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-12-2020 1. अपीलकर्ता द्वारा ऑनलाइन आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/20/00994 के माध्यम से निम्नंलिखित सूचना मांगी गई थी:- 1. 01 जनवरी, 2020 से लेकर इस RTI आवेदन का जवाब प्राप्‍त होने तक के दौरान CIC में आउटसोर्स केयरटेकर हर माह कितने दिनों तक छुट्टी पर रहा और कितने दिनों तक वर्क फ्रॉम होम काम करता रहा है । कृपया उपरोक्‍त वर्णित आउटसोर्स केयरटेकर की कुल छुट्टियों तथा वर्क फ्रॉम होम का सम्पूर्ण ब्यौरा माह के अनुसार अलग-2 प्रदान कीजिए । यदि जन सूचना अधिकारी मांगी गई जानकारी को सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम,2005 की धारा 11 (1) के तहत थर्ड पार्टी इनफार्मेशन मानते हैं, तो वृहद जनहित की दृष्टिै से संबंधित केयरटेकर को सूचना के प्रकटन हेतु अनुरोध के बारे में सूचित करें । 2. उक्तर आर.टी.आई. आवेदन के प्रतिउत्तर में श्री एस. के. रब्बानी, केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा निम्नलिखित सूचना उपलब्ध करवाई गई:- 1. सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम 2005 की धारा 8 (1) (j) के अंतर्गत यह सूचना नहीं दी जा सकती । धारा 8 (1) (j) के अंतर्गत वह सूचना जो व्यक्तिगत सूचना से संबंधित है जिसका प्रकटन किसी लोक क्रियाकलाप या हित से संबंध नहीं रखता है, सूचना देने के लिए बाध्य नहीं है । 3. प्रदान की गई सूचना से संतुष्ट नहीं होने पर अपीलकर्ता ने प्रथम अपील दाखिल की है तथा आरोप लगाया है कि ‘श्री एस. के. रब्बानी सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 की धारा 8 (1) (j) की आड़ में बृहद् जनहित (lager public interest) के खिलाफ जाकर आउटसोर्स केयरटेकर श्री जगत सिंह रावत द्वारा की गई प्रशासनिक गड़बड़ियों, वित्तीय धोखेधड़ी तथा वित्तीय घोटालेबाजी का बचाव करने के लिए मांगी गई सूचनाएं छिपा रहे हैं तथा श्री एस. के. रब्बानी भी श्री जगत सिंह रावत के साथ जनधन (public fund) का दुरूपयोग करके वित्तीय धोखेधड़ी (fraud) तथा वित्तीय घोटालेबाजी (scam) करने के गैर-कानूनी कार्यकलापों में शामिल हैं’। 4. आर.टी.आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील आवेदन का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि श्री एस. के. रब्बानी द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम, 2005 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार ही है तथा अपीलकर्ता द्वारा प्रथम अपील आवेदन में श्री जगत सिंह रावत एवं श्री एस. के. रब्बानी के खिलाफ लगाए गए भ्रष्टाचार के आरोपों की पुष्टि में कोई साक्ष्य संलग्न नहीं किए गए हैं । अत: इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्त‍क्षेप की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है । NA
2320 CICOM/A/E/20/00247 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 19-12-2020 1. The Appellant, through his online RTI application No. CICOM/R/T/20/00076 dated 25.11.2020, has asked about status of his applications No. 657697/2019, 658705/2019, 660187/2019 and file no. 656543/2019. 2. CPIO Shri Krishan Avtar Talwar has replied to the Appellant vide letter dated 18.12.2020 as under:- Diary No. 657697/2019, 658705/2019, 660187/2019 were transferred to concerned State Information Commissions (SIC). File No. CIC/CALHC/A/2019/656543 was registered on 14.11.2019 on which hearing will be held in due course of time. 3. The Appellant has requested to order SIC and PIO, Calcutta High Court for providing answers as soon as possible. 4. On perusal of the First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by the CPIO, it is observed that reply given by Shri Krishan Avtar Talwar, CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA