| SNo. |
Registration No |
Appellate Authority Name |
Received date |
Reply Appeal |
Reply Doc |
| 2361 |
CICOM/A/P/20/00102 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
17-11-2020 |
Please see the file. |
 |
| 2362 |
CICOM/A/P/20/00103 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
17-11-2020 |
Please see the file. |
|
| 2363 |
CICOM/A/P/20/00105 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
17-11-2020 |
Please see the file. |
|
| 2364 |
CICOM/A/P/20/00104 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
17-11-2020 |
Please see the file. |
|
| 2365 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00219 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
13-11-2020 |
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 has asked for following information:
1. Total number and list of all pending cases registered in the year 2018 and prior as on current date of this RTI by the DR Shri Assija.
2. Grounds available in records along with proof based upon which S.no. 1 hearing is not scheduled by the DR thereby violating section 4.1.b.iv of CIC.
3. Total number and list of all pending cases registered in the year 2018 and prior as on date of disposal of this RTI by the DR Shri Assija.
4. Total number and list of all legal notices received by CIC from the advocate of applicants or complainants pertaining to violation of section 4.1.b.iv of CIC.
5. Copies of all documents which were prepared, executed, issued, and received pertaining to S.no. 4 along with file noting and signatures of the officials.
In response to the above RTI Application, the CPIO Shri Ashok Kumar Assija, DR to IC-VN provided following point-wise following information to the Appellant:
1. No such list is maintained by the registry. The pending list of the Commission is available on the website of the Commission. i.e. https://dsscic.nic.in/cause-list-report-web/view-pending-cases.
2. No such information is available on record in the registry.
3. No such information is available on record in the registry.
4. No such information is available on record in the registry.
5. No such information is available on record in the registry.
6. No such information is available on record in the registry.
The Appellant in his First Appeal has said that the “PIO is obstructing information deliberately, knowingly and with mala-fide intentions.â€
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 authoritycan 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 per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. |
NA |
| 2366 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00220 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
13-11-2020 |
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 has asked for following information:
1. Grounds available in records based upon which hearing of case no. CIC/CICOM/C/2017/188883/CICOM is delayed as per section 4.1.b.iv.
2. Name and designation of the official accountable as per S.no. 1.
3. Copy of approval letter based upon which the hearing of the case is delayed.
4. List of all other cases which have been delayed for hearing as on current date.
5. Name, designation and official mobile number of the competent authority along with copy of approval of each case mentioned at S.no. 4.
In response to the above RTI Application, the CPIO Shri Ashok Kumar Assija, DR to IC-VN provided following point-wise following information to the Appellant:
1. No such information is available on record. However, the hearing of the case No. CIC/CICOM/C/2017/188883/CICOM has already been done on 22/10/2020.
2. No such information is available on record in the registry.
3. No such information is available on record in the registry.
4. No such information is available on record in the registry.
The Appellant in his First Appeal has said that the “PIO is obstructing information deliberately, knowingly and with mala-fide intentions.â€
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 authoritycan 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 per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. |
NA |
| 2367 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00221 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
13-11-2020 |
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 has asked for following information:
1. Grounds available in records based upon which hearing of case no. CIC/CICOM/C/2018/620106 is delayed for hearing as on current date as per section 4.1.b.iv mentioned on CIC website.
2. Name and designation of the official accountable for delaying the hearing as on first come first out basis as per S.no. 1.
3. Date on which the file of case no. CIC/CICOM/C/2018/620106 was received by DR Shri Assija along with list of cases which have been provided out of turn hearing since then.
In response to the above RTI Application, the CPIO Shri Ashok Kumar Assija, DR to IC-VN provided following point-wise following information to the Appellant:
1. No such information is available on record. However, the hearing of the case No. CIC/CICOM/C/2018/620106 has already been scheduled for hearing on 23/11/2020.
2. No such information is available on record.
3. The above mentioned case alongwith other cases have been transferred to the registry of IC(VN) in the month of August/Sept, 2020.
The Appellant in his First Appeal has said that the “PIO is obstructing information deliberately, knowingly and with mala-fide intentions.â€
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 authoritycan 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 per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. |
NA |
| 2368 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00218 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
12-11-2020 |
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 asked for following information:
1. Month wise number of complaints registered and admitted by Information Commissioner (IC) from January 2018 till up to date.
2. Month wise number of complaints disposed of through Hearing and Order Decision by IC from January 2018 till up to date.
3. Month end number of pending complaints with IC from January 2018 till up to date.
4. Month wise average days taken by IC to dispose of complaints from its registration date for the period from January 2018 till up to date.
In response to the above RTI Application, the CPIO Shri Devendra Kumar, MR Section, vide his letter dated 15.10.2020, provided point-wise information to the Appellant in respect to point no. 1 to 3 and in respect to point no. 4, the appellant was informed that, “Information will be forwarded to you by the concerned section shortly.â€
The Appellant in his First Appeal has mentioned that information against point No. 4 has not been provided by the CPIO and has requested to direct the CPIO to provide the desired information against point no. 4.
It is observed that CPIO, RTI Cell, Sh. Ram Kumar, vide his letter dated 19.10.2020 has provided information to the Appellant against point No. 4 of the RTI Application, in which the Appellant has been informed that, “With regard to point 4, no such information is maintained.†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 authoritycan be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or interpret information that is not a part of the record. 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 |
| 2369 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00217 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
11-11-2020 |
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, by giving reference of W.Ps and W.M.Ps No. 11987, 11896,14616, 14615 of 2020, which were filed by the Appellant in Madras High Court, asked for certain information regarding affidavit submitted by the CIC to the court, reason for not filing the affidavit, if not filed, stand of CIC in above matters, copy of note sheet regarding that and other related information against 7 points.
In response to the above RTI Application, the CPIO Shri Kishore Kumar Pukhral, Legal Cell, vide his letter dated 27.10.2020 provided following point-wise following information to the Appellant:
Point No. 1 to 4: CPIO is not supposed to interpret information or to furnish replies to situational queries or to furnish clarifications. Queries seeking answers and explanations from the CPIO are not covered within the definition of ‘Information’ under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 as held in the Central Information Commission decision No. CIC/NINCL/A/2019/649799 dated 28.09.2020.
Point No.5, 6 & 7: The matter is sub-judice, no information can be supplied.
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 authoritycan be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or interpret information that is not a part of the record. Similarly, information, pertaining to sub-judice matter is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005. 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 |
| 2370 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00216 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
10-11-2020 |
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 has asked for following information:
1. Total number and list of all cases where IC Shri Neeraj Kumar Gupta in his interim decision directed concerned DR to re-fix the hearing.
2. Total number and list of all cases from S.No. 1 where DR has shown non-compliance till current date of RTI along with grounds available in records for showing non-compliance.
3. Copies of all documents which were prepared, executed, issued, and received pertaining to S.No. 2 along with file noting and signature of the officials.
In response to the above RTI Application, the CPIO Shri Ashok Kumar Assija, DR to IC-VN provided following point-wise following information to the Appellant:
1. Information in the matter sought by the applicant is not available in the compiled form.
2. –do-
3. The information sought is not specific and it requires interpretation.
The Appellant in his First Appeal has said that the “PIO is obstructing information deliberately, knowingly and with mala-fide intentions.â€
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 authoritycan 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 per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. |
NA |