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
2371 CICOM/A/E/20/00212 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-11-2020 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. List of cases registered in 2018 against Central Information Commission which are pending for hearing as on current date of RTI. 2. Grounds available in records based upon which hearing of cases mentioned at S.No. 1 is delayed as per section 4.1.b.iv set by CIC. 3. Name and designation of the official accountable as per S.No.2. 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. 2. No such information is available on record in the registry. 3. 3. 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.” 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
2372 CICOM/A/E/20/00213 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-11-2020 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. List of cases registered in 2017 against Central Information Commission which are pending for hearing as on current date of RTI. 2. Grounds available in records based upon which hearing of cases mentioned at S.No. 1 is delayed as per section 4.1.b.iv set by CIC. 3. Name and designation of the official accountable as per S.No.2. 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. 2. No such information is available on record in the registry. 3. 3. 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.” 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
2373 CICOM/A/E/20/00211 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-11-2020 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, through his RTI Application,by accusing BSF of not selecting him on the medical ground, asked for reason for not hearing his Second Appeal filed against BSF on the basis of Human Right Violation. In response to the above RTI Application, the CPIO, Sh. Ram Kumar, RTI Cell, CIC, vide his letter dated 23.10.2020 informed the Appellant that “Central Information Commission does not have the information. You may approach the concerned authority. Central Information is the Second Appellant Authority for the RTIs filed with Departments/Ministries under Central Government and UTs of India.” 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. 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
2374 CICOM/A/E/20/00210 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 05-11-2020 प्रार्थी के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन, सीपीआईओ के जवाब और प्रार्थी द्वारा दाखिल प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने के उपरांत यह स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी ने अपने आर.टी.आई आवेदन के माध्यम से आयोग में कार्यरत्त एक आंकड़ा प्रविष्टि प्रचालक (DEO) को आयोग में भर्ती किये जाने कीअवधि, उनका मासिक वेतन और60 वर्षसे अधिक आयु का होने के वावजूद, उन्हें जिस नियम अथवा आदेश के आधार पर भर्ती किया गया, उसके विवरण की मांग की थी। केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी, श्रीसी.विनोद बाबूने दिनांक 04.11.2020 के पत्र के माध्यम से प्रार्थी को बिन्दुवार सूचना प्रेषित की, जिसमेंसम्बंधित कर्मचारी के मासिक वेतन की सूचना कोसूचना अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा 8(1)(j) के प्रावधानों के अंतर्गत प्रदान करते हुए,हुए शेष सूचना प्रदान कर दी गई थी। प्राप्त जवाब से असंतुष्ट होकर प्रार्थी ने प्रस्तुत प्रथम अपील संस्थित किया है, जिसमें प्रार्थी ने आवेदन के बिंदु संख्या 2 एवं 3 के अंतर्गत प्रदान की गई सूचना कोगलत और असत्य बताया है। यहाँ यह उल्लेख प्रासंगिक होगा कि,सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा 2(च) के प्रावधानों के आलोक में एक जन सूचना अधिकारी, सम्बंधित लोक प्राधिकार के नियंत्रणाधीन और रिकॉर्ड में उपलब्ध और प्रदान किये जाने योग्य सूचना ही प्रदान कर सकता है। अत: आवेदन के बिंदु संख्या 1 तथा 3 के अंतर्गत प्रदान की गई सूचना तथ्यानुरूप और सूचना काअधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप है । जहाँ तक आवेदन के बिंदु संख्या 2 की सूचना, जोप्रश्नगत कर्मचारी के वेतन से सम्बंधित है,तृतीय पक्ष की गोपनीय सूचना है और सूचनाका अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा8(1)(j) केप्रावधानों के अंतर्गत इसे किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को प्रदान नहीं की जा सकती है, विशेषकर उस परिस्थिति में, जबकिइसके प्रकटन में कोई लोकहित निहित नहीं है और न ही प्रार्थी ने इसके समर्थन में कोई विशिष्ट दलील ही प्रस्तुत कियाहै।अत: प्रस्तुत मामले में अधोहस्ताक्षरी के हस्तक्षेप की आवश्यकता नहीं है। NA
2375 CICOM/A/E/20/00208 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-11-2020 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, through his RTI Application, asked for following information: 1. “Provide the lunch hours applicable to Information Commissioner, Chief Information Commissioner and other officers/officials of the CIC. 2. Provide the information about listing of second appeals, complaints and non-compliance petitions before the Information Commissioner and/or Chief IC, post lunch hours in the Central Information Commission. 3. Provide the daily record of entry and exit timings of all the official vehicles along with names of the all the officials to whom the vehicles have been allocated from the CIC building (excluding the lock down period). 4. Copy of attendance records of all the officials mentioned at S. No. 3.” The CPIO, CIC, Sh. C. VinodBabu, through his reply dated 21.10.2020, provided following information to the Appellant: 1. “Lunch hours in CIC are between 01.30 P.M. to 02.00 P.M. without any exception. 2. Do not pertain to Admn. Section. Accordingly the RTI Application is transferred to DS (CR) for appropriate disposal direct to the applicant. 3. Do not pertain to Admn. Section. Accordingly the RTI application is transferred to DS (GA) for appropriate disposal direct to the applicant. 4. The information is exempt from sharing under Section 8(1)(j).” The CPIO, CIC, Sh. C. VinodBabu, through his next letter dated 21.10.2020, informed the Appellant that the information against point no. 2, “will be provided by RTI Cell, CIC”. Consequently, Shri Ram Kumar, CPIO (RTI Cell), vide his letter dated 29.10.2020 provided following information against point no.2.: “The details regarding listing of 2nd Appeals and complaints are available on the Commission website cic.gov.in. You may go through dscic.nic.in/causelist-report-web/registry-cause-list/1.” It is also observed that reply against point no. 3 of the RTI Application has been sent to the Appellant by Sh. S. K. Rabbani, Deputy Secretary, (P&B), in which desired information has been denied u/s 8(1)(g) of RTI Act, considering its disclosure dangerous to the security of the individuals. It is observed that the issue raised by the Appellant has already been addressed by the undersigned in First Appeal Order no. CICOM/A/E/20/00193 dated 23.10.2020, which was filed by the Appellant in respect to his above RTI Application. The Appellant has not raised any other specific issue through this First Appeal Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA
2376 CICOM/A/P/20/00101 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-11-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
2377 CICOM/A/P/20/00100 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-11-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
2378 CICOM/A/P/20/00099 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-11-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
2379 CICOM/A/E/20/00206 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-11-2020 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 through his RTI Application asked for interpretationofvarious terms used in Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005. In response to the above RTI Application, the CPIO, Sh. Ram Kumar, RTI Cell, CIC, vide his letter dated 27.10.2020 informed the Appellant that, “Questions/Queries cannot be answered/clarified under RTI Act. Central Information Commission is the second appellate authority for the RTIs filed with Ministries/Departments under Central Government and UTs of India.” 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. He is also not required to interpret information.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
2380 CICOM/A/E/20/00205 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-11-2020 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, through his RTI Application, asked for following information: 1. “Provide the lunch hours applicable to Information Commissioner, Chief Information Commissioner and other officers/officials of the CIC. 2. Provide the information about listing of second appeals, complaints and non-compliance petitions before the Information Commissioner and/or Chief IC, post lunch hours in the Central Information Commission. 3. Provide the daily record of entry and exit timings of all the official vehicles along with names of the all the officials to whom the vehicles have been allocated from the CIC building (excluding the lock down period). 4. Copy of attendance records of all the officials mentioned at S. No. 3.” In response to the above RTI Application, the CPIO, C. VinodBabu, CIC provided following information to the Appellant: 1. The working hours of the Commission are from 09.30 to 18.00 hrs. (Saturdays and Sundays closed), which are applicable to all category of personnel. 2. The information has been given above against point number 1. 3. The information is given at the web site of CIC, the link for which is given below https://cic.gov.in/contact. 4. Information same as given at CIC’s website as mentioned above. The Appellant in his First Appeal has said that, “The “PIO was supposed to provide information on point number 2 of my RTI, which he is obstructing deliberately, knowingly and with the mala-fide intentions.” 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. The CPIO in his reply has already provided his reply in respect to query no. 2 of the RTI Application, which is factual and as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, this issue has already been addressed by the undersigned in First Appeal Order no. CICOM/A/E/20/00193 dated 23.10.2020, which was filed by the Appellant in respect to his above RTI Application. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA