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
2401 CICOM/A/E/20/00189 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 20-10-2020 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, by referring a note, through which recommendation was made by the Registry of IC-VN to close the case of non-compliance matter of Second Appeal No. CIC/IIITV/A/2019/657185 of the Appellant, asked for the basis of making such recommendation and relying upon by the Commission, whereas, required information had not been supplied by the concerned CPIO. The CPIO, Sh. A. K. Assija, DR to IC-VN, informed the Appellant that, “The noting dated 15.09.2020 has been made on the basis of documents available on record. The Commission has relied upon the E-book of the case. In this connection, a copy of the E-book of the case has been sent to you on your e-mail.”Aggrieved with the reply, the Appellant has filed this First Appeal stating, “I have through entire 1299 pages of the E-book of the case provided to me as a pdf attachment to email sent to me. I could not find the specific information sought by me in the entire lot of 1299 pages of the E-book.” It is important to note 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. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information. In fact, the Appellant is aggrieved with the decision taken by the Commission regarding closing his case of non-compliance and commenting on that is beyond the jurisdiction of a CPIO. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO is factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in the matter. NA
2402 CICOM/A/E/20/00187 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-10-2020 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, by attaching his RTI Application separately, has asked for information from the CPIO, CIC. The CPIO, CIC, RTI Cell, in his reply informed the Appellant that, “please refer to your online RTI application received in Central Information Commission on 06.10.2020. On perusal of your above online RTI request, it has been found that no attachment is attached with the RTI request although you have mentioned in your RTI request as “Please find RTI petition attached”. In absence of the RTI details, your above online request is returned to you.” It is worth mentioning that as per available record, the said RTI application of the Appellant has not been found attached with ‘rti online portal’ and hence the reply sent by the CPIO is based on the facts, available in record and hence it is justified. However, the appellant has attached his RTI Application with his online First Appeal now, through which he has asked for information against 4 points regarding total number of case files pertaining to SPMCIL (Public Authorities) and its units, pending to be transferred to the Registry of IC, Ms. Vanja Sarna, ground for keeping them pending, their list, pending cases of non-compliance with the Registry of IC, Neeraj Gupta etc. In light of the above facts, the CPIO, RTI Cell, is hereby directed to process the RTI Application (copy enclosed) as per the provision of RTI Act. The appellant is free to file his First Appeal, if he feels aggrieved with the reply to be sent by the CPIO in respect to his RTI Application. NA
2403 CICOM/A/E/20/00188 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-10-2020 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 the basis of scheduling a particular case for hearing out of turn, list of such cases, which have been scheduled for hearing allegedly violating “suo motu disclosure Section 4(1)(b)(iv) after work allocation dated 26.08.2020 was issued”, name and designation of the officer, responsible for this violation and copies of letters, received by IC-Vanjan N Sarna for “not to discriminate or violation Section 4(1)(b)(iv) against 4 points.” The CPIO, Sh. A. K. Assija, DR to IV-VN, in respect to point nos. 1 to 3, informed the Appellant that “No such information is available on record.” and for point no. 4, the Appellant was informed that, “No such record is maintained in the registry of IC(VN).” Aggrieved with the reply, the Appellant has filed this First Appeal alleging that, “The PIO is obstructing all the information deliberately, knowingly and with the malafide intensions.” It is important to note 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. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO is factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in the matter. NA
2404 CICOM/A/P/20/00091 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 19-10-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
2405 CICOM/A/P/20/00092 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 19-10-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
2406 CICOM/A/E/20/00186 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 19-10-2020 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, received in the Commission on transfer from DoP&T, has asked for information regarding “instructions order/OM issued by DoP&T/CIC to the CPIOs not to request applicants, particularly those of the age of 65 years to travel to the offices of CPIOs to inspect documents and obtain information” during the situation of Covid-19 pandemic. The CPIO, CIC, RTI Cell, in his reply informed the Appellant that, “as far as the Commission is concerned, no such information is available.” It is important to note 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. Hence, the reply sent by the CPIO is factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in the matter. NA
2407 CICOM/A/E/20/00185 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 18-10-2020 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 information regarding total numbers of CPIOs, CAPIOs and FAAs appointed in newly formed UTs, J&K and Laddakh since their formation till 31st August, 2020, total nos. of RTI applications filed and disposed off under various categories during the period, number of Second Appeals, pending with State Information Commission and number of cases transferred to Central Information Commission and other related information against 7 points. The CPIO, CIC, RTI Cell, in his reply dated 21.09.2020 informed the Appellant that information against point nos. 1 to 5 is not available in Central Information Commission and advised the Appellant to contact to the CPIOs of UTs of J&K and UT of Laddakh. For rest of the information, against point nos. 6 & 7, the CPIO, RTI Cell transferred the RTI application to the CPIO, MR Section. The Appellant in his First Appeal petition, by quoting article 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 has requested to direct the CPIO to transfer the RTI Application u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act to the concerned CPIOs of UTs J&K and Laddakh for the information against point nos. 1 to 5 and to direct the CPIO, MR Section to provide the information against point nos. 6 & 7, since no response has been received by the Appellant in this regard. The CPIO, RTI Cell, CIC, in his comments, has intimated that the present RTI Application of the Appellant has been filed online and concerned public authorities of UTs of J&K and Ladakh are yet to be registered on the ‘rti portal’ by themselves. Hence, the RTI Application cannot be transferred to them online. Therefore, the Appellant was informed to file his Application directly to them. The undersigned agrees with the comments submitted by the CPIO, RTI Cell, CIC. The Appellant, if desires, can file his RTI Application directly to the concerned public authorities of the UTs for the information against point nos. 1 to 5. In light of the above, the CPIO, RTI Cell, is hereby directed to send a reply to the Appellant against point nos. 6 & 7 of the RTI Application within 15 days after getting it received from MR Section u/s5(4) of the RTI Act, 2005 within 15 days after receipt of this order. NA
2408 CICOM/A/E/20/00183 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 14-10-2020 प्रार्थी द्वारा वांछित सूचना, जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रेषित जवाब और प्रार्थी द्वारा दाखिल प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर यह स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी ने अपने प्रस्तुत आवेदन के माध्यम से दिनांक 01.01.2020 से आवेदन की तिथि तक आउटसोर्सड एजेंसियों ‘बी. के. इंटरप्राइजेज’ और ‘जिनेन्द्र’ को आउटसोर्सड कर्मचारियों के वेतन हेतु किये गए भुगतान की तिथियाँ और आयोग के लीगल कंसल्टेंट्स और रिटायर्ड कंसल्टेंट्स को किये गए भुगतान की तिथियों की मांग की है। उपरोक्त आरटीआई के जवाब में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी, श्री उप-सचिव ने दिनांक 11.09.2020 के पत्र के माध्यम से प्रार्थी को यह सूचित किया है कि, “ऐसा कोई रिकॉर्ड नहीं रखा जाता है।” उल्लेखनीय है कि प्रार्थी ने अपने प्रथम अपील में यह अभियोग लगाया है कि आयोग से किये जाने वाले भुगतान और कर्मचारियों के वेतन का कोई रिकॉर्ड नहीं रखा जाता है, जो निराधार है। आर.टी.आई. अधिनियम के अंतर्गत एक जन सूचना अधिकारी केवल मांगी गई सूचना के परिप्रेक्ष्य में रिकॉर्ड में उपलब्ध सूचना ही प्रदान कर सकता है। प्रार्थी के प्रस्तुत प्रथम अपील के सन्दर्भ ने सम्बंधित जन सूचना अधिकारी ने अपनी टिप्पणी में यह अवगत कराया है कि आयोग के आउटसोर्सड कर्मचारियों को सम्बंधित एजेंसियों द्वारा किये जाने वाले वेतन भुगतान की तिथि से सम्बंधित विवरण सम्बंधित एजेंसी और उसके कर्मचारियों के बीच की विषय-वस्तु है। इस सम्बन्ध में कोई सूचना आयोग में उपलब्द्ध नहीं है। इसी प्रकार आउटसोर्सड एजेंसियों अथवा लीगल कंसल्टेंट्स/रिटायर्ड कंसल्टेंट्स के वेतन भुगतान की तिथि का संकलन भी आयोग में नहीं किया जाता है। हालाँकि इस सम्बन्ध में सम्बंधित प्राधिकरण, जो भुगतान जारी करता है, से सूचना प्राप्त कर प्रार्थी को प्रेषित की जा सकती है। उपरोक्त तथ्यों के आलोक में केन्द्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी, श्री एस. के रब्बानी, उप-सचिव को यह निर्देश दिया जाता है कि प्रस्तुत आदेश की प्राप्ति से 15 दिनों के अन्दर प्रार्थी के प्रस्तुत आरटीआई. के सन्दर्भ में प्रश्नगत आउटसोर्सड एजेंसियों तथा लीगल/रिटायर्ड कंसलटेंट को आवेदन में इंगित अवधि के अंतर्गत वेतन के सन्दर्भ में किये गए भुगतान की तिथि की सूचना एकत्रित कर प्रार्थी को प्रेषित करें। NA
2409 CICOM/A/E/20/00184 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 14-10-2020 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 information regarding number and details of Departments/Ministries, who have submitted/not submitted the compliance report to Central Information Commission in respect to suo-motu disclosure u/s 4 of RTI Act as per an OM of DoP&T. The Appellant has however not given the details of the DoP&T’s OM in his RTI Application. The CPIO, CIC in his reply dated 23.09.2020 has informed the Appellant that, “Under Section 4 of the RTI Act, 2005, CIC has been making suo motu disclosure regularly which may be seen on its website.” and “No other department is supposed to submit the disclosure to CIC. CIC does not have any instructions/mandate from DoPT in this regard. The copy of DoPT OM as quoted by the applicant may be provided by the applicant to examine the matter further.” The Appellant in his First Appeal, by giving details of DoP&T’s OM, i.e. No. 1/6/2011-IR dated 05.11.2019 has requested to “direct the CPIO to provide the desired information as per RTI application.” In light of the details of the concerned OM of DoP&T, as provided by the Appellant in his First Appeal, the CPIO, Shri C. Vinod Babu is directed to send a revised reply to the Appellant within 15 days after receipt of this order. NA
2410 CICOM/A/E/20/00182 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 12-10-2020 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 through his RTI Application has asked for information regarding “zone wise vacancies of Assistant Enforcement Directorate to be recruited through SSC CGL Examination 2019”. The Appellant, in his RTI Application, has informed that the above information was asked for earlier from Ministry of Revenue, but after getting unsatisfactory reply and dissatisfied with the order passed by FAA, Ministry of Revenue, he has filed Appeal as per the direction by the FAA. The CPIO, CIC in his reply has informed the Appellant that “Please refer to your online RTI application received in Central Information Commission on 26.09.2020. If you are not satisfied with the First Appellate Authority’s reply against your first appeal, then you should file second appeal with the Central Information enclosing there with all the necessary documents as per RTI Act, 2005.” It is observed that the Appellant has filed his Second Appeal in the form of RTI Application. It is worth mentioning here that the Central Information Commission is the second and final Appellate Authority under RTI Act against Central Public Authorities. CIC receives Complains u/s 18 and Second Appeal u/s 19(3) of RTI Act online, only through the web link available on the website of CIC, i.e. cic.gov.in., not in the form of RTI Application. The Appellant can also file his complain or Second Appeal offline as per format provided under RTI Rules, 2012, which is available in public domain and also on website of the Commission Hence the information provided by the CPIO, suggesting the Appellant to file Second Appeal with the Commission, is as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of FAA in this matter. NA