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
2391 CICOM/A/P/20/00096 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 23-10-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
2392 CICOM/A/P/20/00093 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-10-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
2393 CICOM/A/P/20/00094 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-10-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
2394 CICOM/A/P/20/00095 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-10-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
2395 CICOM/A/P/20/00097 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-10-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
2396 CICOM/A/P/20/00098 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-10-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
2397 CICOM/A/E/20/00191 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-10-2020 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 following information: 1. “Provide the working days of the CIC in a year. 2. In reference to the point no. 1 above, provide the ordinary/general working days of the 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. List of working days, their corresponding dates and name of the ICs/CIC where no hearing was conducted along with grounds available in records for the same.” The CPIO, CIC, Sh. C. Vinod Babu, through his reply dated 21.10.2020, provided following information to the Appellant: 1. “Except Saturday, Sunday and public holidays notified by DoPT every year, all other days are working days in CIC 2. The Working days as mentioned above are applicable to the entire Commission. 3. No list of working days is prepared. Information regarding ‘no hearing’ on any particular working day does not pertain to Admin Section.” The Appellant in his First Appeal petition, complained that, “The PIO is obstructing all the information deliberately, knowingly and with the malafide intentions to promote corrupt practices.” 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 authority can be provided by a PIO. Accordingly, the information sent by the CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA
2398 CICOM/A/E/20/00192 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-10-2020 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 following information: 1. “Provide the working hours of the CIC in a year. 2. In reference to the point no. 1 above, provide the ordinary/general working hours of the 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 list of the place/location where the information regarding working hours of CIC is displayed. 4. Provide the website link of the CIC where the details of the working hours of the commission are provided. The CPIO, CIC, Sh. C. Vinod Babu, through his reply dated 21.10.2020, provided following information to the Appellant: 1. “Information sought is available on the Commission’s web-site, the link of which is given below: https://cic.gov.in/contact. 2. The working hours mentioned at the web-site are uniformly applicable to all categories of personnel. 3. The relevant Section of the CIC’s web-site for this information is ‘Contact Us’. 4. The link has been given against point number 1 above.” The Appellant in his First Appeal petition, complained that, “The PIO is obstructing all the information deliberately, knowingly and with the malafide intentions to promote corrupt practices.” 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 authority can be provided by a PIO. Accordingly, the information sent by the CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA
2399 CICOM/A/E/20/00193 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-10-2020 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 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 theCIC 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. The Appellant in his First Appeal petition, has complained that, “The PIO is obstructing all the information deliberately, knowingly and with the malafide intentions.” 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. Accordingly, the information against point nos. 1 & 2, sent by the CPIOs, CIC is factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the information against point no. 3 is exempted u/s 8(1)(g) and point no 4 is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005 and the Appellant has not given any specific reason as to how the disclosure of this information is in larger public interest.Hence, information against point nos. 3 & 4 cannot be provided to any third party. NA
2400 CICOM/A/E/20/00190 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 21-10-2020 On going through the online 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 time limit for scheduling hearing of Second Appeals filed with the Commission and process/parameters required for urgent hearing. The CPIO, Sh. Krishana Avatar Talwar, Central Registry-I, in respect to point no. 1 of the RTI Application, informed the Appellant that, “No such time limit.” and for the remaining information the Appellant was informed that, “As mentioned under FAQ on web-site of this Commission, Complaints and Second Appeals filed in this Commission under the RTI Act are taken up for hearing in chronological order. However, the Commission in particular matter may decide to accord precedence depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.” It is important to note that the CPIO has provided point-wise information to the Appellant. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in the matter. NA