| SNo. | Registration No | Appellate Authority Name | Received date | Reply Appeal | Reply Doc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2381 | CICOM/A/E/20/00204 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 02-11-2020 | 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 online RTI Application, asked for certain information, which was pertaining to the Supreme Court of India. In response to the above RTI Application, the CPIO, Sh. Ram Kumar, RTI Cell, CIC vide his letter dated 30.09.2020, transferred the RTI Application u/s 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 to the CPIO, Supreme Court of India. On getting no response from the CPIO, Supreme Court of India, the Appellant has filed this First Appeal with CIC, stating that the ‘RTI portal’ is showing that his above RTI request has been disposed off by the CPIO, CIC, whereas, as per reply of the CPIO, CIC, his RTI Application has been transferred to the CPIO, Supreme Court of India. The Appellant has requested to direct the CPIO, CIC to provide the copy of the letter to the Appellant, through which Appellant’s RTI Application was transferred to the CPIO, Supreme Court of India because he has not received any such letter. From perusal of record it is clear that the said RTI Application of the Appellant has been transferred to the CPIO, Supreme Court of India vide letter dated 30.09.2020 and copy of the letter has also been endorsed to the Appellant. However, as has been stated by the Appellant that he has not received any letter from the CPIO, CIC, Sh. Ram Kumar, RTI Cell is directed to send a copy of his letter dated 30.09.2020 to the Appellant within 15 days after receipt of this order. | NA |
| 2382 | CICOM/A/E/20/00202 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 01-11-2020 | Ongoing 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. Provide the sitting hours of CIC. 2. In reference to the point no. 1 above, provide the ordinary/general sitting hours of CIC as are applicable to the following: I. Officers and officials from the lowest rank to the Secretary of the Commission. II. Information Commissioners. III. Chief Information Commissioner. 3. Provide the information of the place/location where the information regarding sitting hours of the CIC is displayed. 4. Provide the website link of the CIC where the details of the sitting hours of the Commission are provided. In response to the above RTI Application, the CPIO, C. Vinod Babu, 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 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 |
| 2383 | CICOM/A/E/20/00203 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 01-11-2020 | 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. “Give the information of the no of cases for which CIC did not get information from the day the present Chief Information Commissioner took over and action taken by them for that. 2. Give the information of the details of the persons viz. phone no email ids of the respondents from the day the present Chief Information Commissioner took over. 3. Give the information of the action taken by DPOT for all these cases since CIC is coming under them. These are serious matters. 4. Give the reason of the information of the reason for not arresting Chief Information Commissioner and his coterie viz. Secretary CPIO FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY under prevention of corruption act and IPC 166 and IPC 166A. Since it involves the life and liberty of the.†In response to the above RTI Application, the CPIO, Sh. Ram Kumar, RTI Cell, CIC informed the appellant, “Please refer to your online RTI Application forwarded from DOPT and received in Central Information Commission on 01.10.2020. The information sought for in your above RTI Application is not clear.†From perusal of the content of RTI Application, it is not clear as to what information that is held by the Commission, has been asked for by the Appellant. His queries are vague. 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 interpret information. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO, CIC is as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Further, the Appellant, in his First Appeal, instead of submitting the information sought by him clearly, has used unparliamentary language against the CPIO.The Appellant is advised to ask specific and clear information, if any, in future. No further intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. | NA |
| 2384 | CICOM/A/E/20/00200 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 30-10-2020 | 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. Audit carried by the department to ensure the contact information provided by the PIO/CPIO, nodal officer in RTI query are functional. 2. Audit carried by the department to ensure the contact e-mail provided the PIO/CPIO in ay RTI query are government and not personal like gmail, yahoo etc. 3. Number of complaints received by the department for non-functional contacts by PIO, CPIO, Nodal Officer etc. with respect to RTI query. In response to above queries of the Appellant, the CPIO, RTI Cell, CIC, Sh. Ram Kumar, vide his letter dated 21.10.2020informed the Appellant that, “Queries cannot be replied under RTI Act, 2005. Central Information Commission is the second appellate authority for the RTIs filed with Ministries/Departments under Central Government and UTs of India.†The Appellant in his First Appeal has stated that if CIC is not the concerned public authority for the desired information, his application may be forwarded to the concerned public authority, as the Appellant is not aware about that. From perusal of the information asked for by the Appellant, it is not clear that the desired information is pertaining to which department and hence, the queries are vague. However, such type of audits have not been carried out by the CIC. Further, 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 as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005 and therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. | NA |
| 2385 | CICOM/A/E/20/00201 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 30-10-2020 | 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: “I want to know measures taken by and or audit carried out the Commissioner office to ensure RTI responses are also concrete and even if it is redirected proper response finally provided to the RTI Requestor instead of asking the requestor to connect to the redirected establishment and get the information (not recorded in the system).†In response to above queries of the Appellant, the CPIO, RTI Cell, CIC, Sh. Ram Kumar, vide his letter dated 21.10.2020 informed the Appellant that, “Queries cannot be replied under RTI Act, 2005. Central Information Commission is the second appellate authority for the RTIs filed with Ministries/Departments under Central Government and UTs of India.†The Appellant in his First Appeal has stated that if CIC is not the concerned public authority for the desired information, his application may be forwarded to the concerned public authority, as the Appellant is not aware about that. From perusal of the information asked for by the Appellant, it is not clear as to what information, held by the Commission, has been asked for by the Appellant and hence, the query is vague. However, such type of audit has not been carried out by the CIC. Further, 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 as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005 and therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. | NA |
| 2386 | CICOM/A/E/20/00195 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 29-10-2020 | 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 information regarding action taken on his letter dated 30.09.2020 and reason for taking no action, if no action has been taken on that. The CPIO, CIC, Sh. Ram Kumar, RTI Cell, in his reply dated 16.10.2020 informed the Appellant that, “On perusal of your above online RTI request, it has been found that no attachment is found with your RTI. In the absence of the RTI details, your above online request is returned to you.†In his First Appeal, the Appellant has stated, that he successfully uploaded his letter dated 30.09.2020 along with his RTI Application. But it is possible that due to technical problem the system is not showing the uploaded documents. However, the appellant has attached his letter dated 30.09.2020 with his fist appeal and has requested to direct the CPIO to provide the desired information to the Appellant. It is worth mentioning, that under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 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.Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO is factual and as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005, because no attachment has been found with his RTI Application. However, the Appellant has now attached the copy of his letter dated 30.09.2020 with his First Appeal Petition, which is basically addressed to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, RTI Department, Govt. of Odisha, Bhubaneswar and its copy has been endorsed to the Central Information Commissioner, New Delhi In light of the above the CPIO, RTI Cell, is directed to send a reply under provision of the RTI Act to the Appellant in respect to his letter dated 30.09.2020 (copy attached), if received in the Commission within 15 days after receipt of this order. | NA |
| 2387 | CICOM/A/E/20/00196 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 29-10-2020 | 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, giving reference of an RTI No. NPCOI/R/X/20/00012 dated 22.09.2020, requested to investigate into the matter and provide him information regarding the name of the person, his Account No. and other details, who had filed the above RTI application in the name of the Appellant by using his e-mail and other details. The CPIO, CIC, Sh. Ram Kumar, RTI Cell, in his reply dated 23.10.2020 informed the Appellant that, “Central Information Commission does not have the information. You may approach the concerned Public Authority. Central Information Commission is the Second Appellant Authority for the RTIs filed with the Departments/Ministries under Central government and UTs of India. Central Information Commission is located at the above address. It has no regional office.†In his First Appeal, the Appellant has not expressed his dissatisfaction with the reply sent by the CPIO, but he has requested to provide above information after getting the matter investigated. It is worth mentioning, that under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 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 information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or furnished replies to the hypothetical questions. Similarly, redressal of grievance is also outside the purview of the Act. Hence, the information sent by the CPIO is factual and per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant, if wishes, may approach to the competent authority for getting his grievance redressed. | NA |
| 2388 | CICOM/A/E/20/00197 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 29-10-2020 | Ongoing 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 clarification as to whether the Kolkata High Court comes under the jurisdiction of Govt. of India or not, if not, then it comes under the jurisdiction of which government including the name of their Public Information Officer, First Appellate Authority under RTI Act and the name of the next Appellate Authority to whom appeals can be filed against the response of the Appellate Authority of Kolkata High Court. The CPIO, CIC, RTI Cell, in his reply dated 23.10.2020 advised the Appellant to visit the website of Kolkata High Court for all the details. The Appellant in his First Appeal has stated that he did not find any information on the website of Kolkata High Court. He has requested to direct the CPIO, CIC to provide the desired information. 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 as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005 and therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. However, the Appellant, if he wishes, may approach the concerned public authority for desired information. | NA |
| 2389 | CICOM/A/E/20/00198 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 29-10-2020 | 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. Ground 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.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. 6. Action taken closure report for S. No. 4. In response to queries no. 1 to 3, the CPIO, MR Section, CIC provided following information to the Appellant “Point no. 1 (a) This information can be viewed from the CIC website link.(https://cic.gov.in/monthly-registered-and-returned-cases). (b) This information can be viewed from the CIC website link.(https://dsscic.nic.in.in/cause-list-report-web/view-pending-cases). Point no. 2 & 3 information will be forwarded to you by the concerned Deputy Registrar shortly.†In response to queries no. 4 to 6, the CPIO, Legal Cell, CIC vide his letter dated 29.10.2020 informed the Appellant that, “Information sought in your RTI Application is personal in nature and no public interest is involved. Hence, information is denied under Section 8(1)(J) of RTI Act, 2005.†The Appellant in his First Appeal has said that the “PIO is obstructing information deliberately, knowingly and with mala-fide intentions in order to promote corruption in the department of CIC.†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, MR Section is as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Further, the information asked for against point no. 4 to 6 is personal information, which is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act and the Appellant has not given any justification as to how the disclosure of these information will serve the larger public interest. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. | NA |
| 2390 | CICOM/A/E/20/00194 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 27-10-2020 | 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 digital copies of Action Taken Reports (ATR) received from all the ministries/departments including public authorities under state governmentsâ€, in respect to guidelines dated 05th November, 2019, issued by DoP&T regarding suo-motu disclosure under Section 4 of Right to Information Act, 2005. The CPIO, CIC, Sh. Kishore Kumar Pukharal, Legal Cell, through his reply dated 27.10.2020, informed the Appellant that, “No record for the information as sought, is available.†In his First Appeal, the Appellant has stated, “I was denied to the information I sought. Kindly order CPIO to provide the information in a digitised format.†It is worth mentioning, that under the provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 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.He is also not required to interpret information or furnished replies to the hypothetical questions. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO is factual and as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the undersigned in this matter | NA |