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
2331 CICOM/A/E/20/00244 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 15-12-2020 I. The Appellant, through his online RTI application No. CICOM/R/E/20/00929 dated 09.11.2020, has asked for the following information with reference to Commission’s decision No. CIC/UBIND/C/2018/167961 dated 27.10.2020:- 1. Certified copy of all records received by the Hon’ble Commission from the respondent CPIO, Union Bank of India between 22/09/2020 to 27/10/2020. 2. Certified copy of the relevant records as an evidence of receipt of RTI Application dated 01/10/2018 by the CPIO of Central Office, Union Bank of India, Mumbai on 17/10/2018. 3. Certified copy of the relevant records as an evidence of despatch of the reply dated 13/11/2018, relied by the Hon’ble Commission. 4. Certified copy of records relied by the Hon’ble Commission, before disposing the Second Appeal No CIC/UBIND/A/2019/103315 dated 19/10/2020, heard on 22/09/2020 along with File No.CIC/UBIND/C/2018/167961. II. CPIO Shri R.Sitarama Murthy has replied to the Appellant on 07.12.2020:- “Point 1, 2, 3 & 4: The submissions / letters dated 22-09-2020, 13-11-2018 & 20-11-2018 of Union Bank of India before the Commission are enclosed. Your attention is also referred to Para 6 of the Commission’s order dtd. 27-10-2020.” III. The Appellant has mentioned that the records requested at para 2, 3 & 4 of his RTI application have not been provided and therefore his First Appeal is restricted to these points. IV. On perusal of the First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by the CPIO, it is observed that reply given by Shri R. Sitarama Murthy, CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the 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. 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. NA
2332 CICOM/A/E/20/00243 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 13-12-2020 I. The Appellant, through his online RTI application No. CICOM/A/E/20/00243 dated 13.12.2020, has asked for the following information with reference to Commission’s decision No. CIC/ISPNR/C/2018/627210 dated 20.10.2020:- 1. Total number of times the applicant has asked for the postponement of hearing along with documentary proof. 2. Copy of rules/regulations/guidelines which the applicant has violated by asking for the postponement of hearing. 3. Copy of rules/regulations/guidelines which the applicant should have followed instead of asking for postponement of hearing. 4. Number of RTIs which the citizen of India is allowed to file along with copy of rules / regulations/ guidelines based upon which IC Smt. Vanaja Sarna has mentioned the same in the decision. 5. Name and designation of deemed PIO whose assistance is sought u/s 5(4) + 5(5) while disposing this current RTI along with Grounds available in records based upon which Ld IC Smt. Sarana’s assistance as a deemed PIO has not been sought (if any). II. CPIO Shri Ashok Kumar Assija has replied online to the Appellant on 11.12.2020:- “1. It is stated that CPIO is not expected to interpret / create information out of the verdict of a quasi-judicial authority. 2. No such information is available on record. 3. It is a query, which is hypothetical in nature and not covered under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. 4. No such information is available on record. 5. It is stated that CPIO is not expected to interpret / create information out of the verdict of a quasi-judicial authority.” III. The Appellant has mentioned “refused access to Information requested” as the ground for his first appeal. IV. On perusal of the First Appeal petition, RTI application and reply given by the CPIO, it is observed that reply given by Shri Ashok Kumar Assija, CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. As per the provision of 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. NA
2333 CICOM/A/P/20/00113 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-12-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
2334 CICOM/A/P/20/00114 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-12-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
2335 CICOM/A/P/20/00112 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-12-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
2336 CICOM/A/E/20/00242 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-12-2020 I. The Appellant through his RTI Application No. CICOM/R/E/20/00983 dated 25.11.2020 asked for the following information related to CIC Order No. CIC/RM/A/2014/004729/SB:- 1. Please provide the attested copy of the letter i.e. response by the Bihar Government dated 24.03.2014. 2. Please provide the attested copy of the decision (decision No. CIC/RM/A/2014/ 004729/SB dated 15.02.2016) include all the annexure attached. II. In response to the above online RTI Application, reply meant for some other RTI applicant had been inadvertently uploaded on 09.12.2020. The Appellant has filed First Appeal on the same day requesting for the correct reply/information. III. After cross-verification, Shri Ram Kumar, CPIO, RTI Cell had provided the following point-wise information on 24.12.2020:- 1. The desired information is not available in Central Information Commission. You may approach the concerned Public Authority. 2. Copy of the decision which is also available on public domain is enclosed herewith for your perusal. IV. The fresh information sent by CPIO is factual and as per provision of RTI Act, 2005. As per the provision of 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. Moreover, all decisions passed by the Commission are available on the website of the Commissioin in public domain and 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’. 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. NA
2337 CICOM/A/E/20/00241 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-12-2020 1. The Appellant through his RTI Application No. CICOM/R/E/20/00980 asked for the information related to various issues like average waiting period for disposal of 2nd Appeals and Complaints in CIC, current number of pending 2nd Appeals and Complaints, present norms for disposal of Appeals and Complaints, copy of minutes of Commission meeting dated 22.03.2011 onward, updated list of former ICs & CICs, total number of Appeals and Complaints decided by them along with details of penalties imposed, year wise holidays and details of weekly holidays since starting of the Commission, year wise working days of the Commission since 2005 to 2020, details of working days of ICs/CICs, details of yearly reports sent to the appropriate Government since inception of the CIC, year-wise pending Appeals & complaints, month wise registration, status of Commission’s order related to six national political parties declared as Public Authority, branch details of CIC and total number of people working in CIC as on 24.11.2020. 2. In response to the above RTI Application, Sh. Ram Kumar, CPIO, RTI Cell informed the Appellant that, “Your RTI is voluminous in nature, you may sought specific and clear information.” 3. It is observed that the information asked for by the Appellant is of various nature and pertains to the different sections of CIC. Collecting and providing them to the Appellant will consume too much time and labour and will also affect the daily mandatory work of CIC. It is also worth mentioning here that the CIC in its decision No. CIC/WB/A/2008/01256 dated 18.07.2008 (Wasi-ul-Haque Vs. Union Public Service Commission) has held, “…..as per section 6 (1) read with section 7 (1) of the Act a request means that the questions and the answers must share an embryonic relationship, the genus of the application must be one and sub questions can constitute different species of the same genus.” Hence, the reply given by the CPIO, CIC is as per the provision of section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant, if he wishes, may file Applications separately for his different queries. NA
2338 CICOM/A/E/20/00239 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-12-2020 1. अपीलकर्ता द्वारा ऑनलाइन आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/20/00922 के माध्यशम से अनुभाग अधिकारी (लीगल सेल) के कार्यकाल को समाप्तक किए जाने से संबंधित निम्न/लिखित सूचनाएं मांगी गई थी:- 1. वर्तमान समय में CIC में CIC प्रशासन द्वारा मुख्यन सूचना आयुक्त2 या सूचना आयुक्तं की मंजूरी होने के बावजूद किस नियम विशेष के आधार पर SO (Legal Cell) के कार्यकाल को 01 नवम्बवर, 2020 को समाप्तe किया गया थ, जबकि SO (Legal Cell) का कार्यकाल माननीय सूचना आयुक्तू श्री यशोवर्धन कुमार सिन्हाम के आदेश से दिसम्बबर, 2020 तक बढ़ाया गया था, मुख्यर सूचना आयुक्तम या सूचना आयुक्त की मंजूरी से बहुत से 65 वर्ष से अधिक आयु वाले कई रिटायर्ड कंसलटेन्टश CIC में आज भी कार्यरत हैं । 2. वर्तमान समय में CIC में CIC प्रशासन द्वारा माननीय सूचना आयुक्तत श्री यशोवर्धन कुमार सिन्हाल के आदेश के अनुपालन में SO (Legal Cell) के कार्यकाल में बढ़ोत्तकरी किस आधार पर नहीं की गई है । 2. उक्तै आर.टी.आई. आवेदन के प्रतिउत्तलर में श्री सी. विनोद बाबू, केन्द्री य जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा बिन्दु वार निम्नेलिखित सूचनाएं उपलब्ध करवाई गई:- 1 एवं 2 - कंसलटेन्टय की नियुक्तिल पत्र की शर्तों के अनुसार उसको सूचना आयोग द्वारा किसी भी समय हटाया जा सकता है । 3. प्रस्तु त आर.टी.आई. आवेदन के संदर्भ में केन्द्री य जन सूचना अधिकारी, श्री सी. विनोद बाबू द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के अनुसार ही है । अत: इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तसक्षेप की कोई आवश्य कता नहीं है । NA
2339 CICOM/A/E/20/00240 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-12-2020 1. The Appellant through his RTI Application No. CICOM/R/E/20/00914 asked for the information on 11 points in part A, out of which point 1 to 5 are related to email sent to Secretary, CIC and points 6 to 11 related to registry. He has also sought for information on 2 points in Part B of RTI application related to Diary No. 690766/2020. 2. The Appellant is not satisfied with the information given by Sh. R P Grover against point no. 10 and 11 of Part A of the RTI application and filed First Appeal petition stating that “CPIO has intentionally not provided copies of CLEARLY IDENTIFIED DOCUMENTS” and he has also submitted that “there is no response by any CPIO of CIC in respect of queries in Part B of the RTI application”. The following information has been asked for on Point No. 10 and 11 of Part A:- Point No. 10 Copy of Approval of the DR of the Concerned Registry on 09.08.2018 that is mentioned in complaint para-1. Point No. 11 Copy of compliance approval document as per records of Central Information Commission in respect of a complaint filed u/s 18, that was approved/ratified/ agreed/ accepted by Shri Bimal Julka as Information Commissioner, that was referred by CPIO Shri Ram Kumar, Section Officer, CR-II, in response to query 9 of RTI application CICOM/R/E/ 20/00337 dated 01.06.2020. The following information has been asked for in Part B of the RTI application related to Diary No. 690766/2020:- 1. Date on which the dak was placed before concerned information commissioner for consideration. 2. Decision of concerned Information Commissioner in respect of request for early hearing. 3. In response to the Point No. 10 and 11 of part A of the above RTI Application, Sh. R. P. Grover, CPIO has provided the following information:- Point No. 10 - “Diary No.108023 dtd 07.02.2017 was linked with the file No. CIC/LS/C/2013/000985, later on same dairy was linked with the correct fileNo. CIC/ YA/C/2015/ 000110. Point No. 11 - “Query is not clear”. 4. It is observed that the information given against point no. 10 of Part A is not as per provision of RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, direction is given to Sh. R. P. Grover to revisit the matter and provide fresh information within 15 days of receipt of this order. 5. It is also observed that no action has been taken by CPIO, RTI Cell on Part B of the RTI application. Accordingly, direction is given to Sh. Ram Kumar, CPIO, RTI Cell to provide the desired information related to Part B of the application within 15 days of receipt of this order and cautioned to be more careful while responding to RTI request in future. NA
2340 CICOM/A/E/20/00236 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-11-2020 1. On going through the RTI Application, the reply sent by the CPIO and the First Appeal filed by the Appellant, it is observed that the Appellant in his RTI Application No. CICOM/R/E/20/00902 mentioned that “now a days ICs are giving decisions and discouraging Appellants/Complainants and not to flood Public Authorities with RTI Applications. I have gone though a decision of Mrs. Vanaja N Sarana in a complaint filed by Mr. Varun Krishna” and asked for the following information:- 1. Number of decisions delivered by Mrs.Vanaja N Sarana, IC in which she has discouraged the Appellant/Complainant in the guise of flooding of RTI applications by any particular person. 2. File Number of all such decisions as above. 2. In response to the above RTI Application, Sh. Ashok Kumar Assija, CPIO has provided the following point wise information:- 1. No such information is maintained by the registry of IC(VN). 2. No such information is maintained by the registry of IC(VN) 3. It is worth mentioning that as per the provision of 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. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO, CIC is factual and per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA