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
2411 CICOM/A/E/20/00181 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-10-2020 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, by referring his Second Appeal No. CIC/BHELD/A/2018/637407, decided by Commission on dated 29.05.2020, has asked for copy of response sent by the concerned CPIO to the Appellant, as has been mentioned in the above 2nd Appeal Order, action taken on his e-mail dated 13.08.2020 and related documents in this regards. The CPIO, Sh. S. C. Sharma, in his reply dated 28.09.2020, has informed the Appellant that “Interpretation of Commission’s order/rules/documents etc., is not within the purview of the CPIO. However, documents, including written submissions of CPIO (concerned), as available in file No. CIC/BHELD/A/2018/637407, is enclosed.” The CPIO, CIC has further informed the Appellant that no action has been taken on his mail dated 13.08.2020. It is worth mentioning here 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 information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or furnished replies to the hypothetical questions.In respect to point No. 1 of the RTI Application, the CPIO, CIC has already sent the copy of written submission of the concerned CPIO, which is available in record. For the rest of the information, the Appellant has been informed that no action has been taken on his e-mail dated 13.08.2020. Hence, the information sent by the CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005 and therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA
2412 CICOM/A/P/20/00089 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-10-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
2413 CICOM/A/P/20/00090 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-10-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
2414 CICOM/A/E/20/00180 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-10-2020 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 action taken on his representation dated 12.09.2020, which was sent to President’s Secretariat, Prime Minister, General Officer Commanding, HQ Southern Command, C/o 56 APO, Central Organization ECHS Delhi Cantt., New Delhi including Central Information Commission in respect to non-compliance of the Order passed by the Central Information Commission in his Second Appeal No. CIC/IARMY/A/2018/164169. The CPIO, CIC, RTI Cell, in his reply informed the Appellant to concerned Public Authority for the desired information. The Appellant in his First Appeal has submitted that, “it is the duty of the Public Information Officer, Central Information Commission to transfer the RTI application to the appropriate authority of the Central Information Commission, I would be grateful if the same can be completed as per the Right to Information Act, 2005.” It is also observed from the facts available in record that the CPIO, RTI Cell also transferred the RTI Application of the Appellant to the CPIO, DO to IC-VN and an online reply has also been sent to Appellant on 26.10.2020, informing him that compliance report dated 25.09.2020 in respect to Second Appeal order No. CIC/ IARMY/A/2018/164169 dated 13.07.2020 has been received from concerned CPIO, which is addressed to the Appellant and its copy has been endorsed to the Commission. The CPIO, DO to IC-VN has also attached the copy of the letter with his reply. In light of the above, the desired information has already been provided to the Appellant and hence, nothing remains for the undersigned to decide. NA
2415 CICOM/A/E/20/00178 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-10-2020 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, by referring his Complaint No. CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/602438, disposed off by the Commission on dated 31.08.2020, has asked for copy of Rules/Regulations/Guidelines of Supreme Court on basis of that the above complaint has been decided allegedly by bypassing section 18(1)(e), list of such type of the decided Cases of the bench, the authority, to whom complaint can be filed in this regard and other related information against 4 point. The CPIO, Sh. S. C. Sharma, in respect to point No. 1 of the RTI Application, has informed the Appellant that “Interpretation of Commission’s order/documents is not within the ambit of the CPIO. However, the CIC order No. CIC/DOEAF/C/2019/602438 dated 31.08.2020, is self- explanatory.” In respect to point No. 2 the Appellant has been informed that “No specific information has been asked for. However, all the decisions of the CIC are available on the CIC site i.e. ‘cic.gov.in’ and you may visit this site to obtain information. Further, for point No. 3, the Appellant has been informed that “No specific information has been asked for and hence unable to provide the same.” and for point No. 4 the Appellant has been intimated that, “No assistance has been sought for in disposing the RTI application.” It is worth mentioning here 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 information that is not a part of the record. He is also not required to interpret information or furnished replies to the hypothetical questions. Whatever the Appellant has asked for against point No.1, is the interpretation of decision passed by the Commission and a CPIO is not competent for that under the provision of RTI Act. Similarly, rest queries have also been responded on the basis of availability of information in record. Hence, the information provided by the CPIO, CIC is factual and as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005 and therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. NA
2416 CICOM/A/E/20/00179 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-10-2020 The present First Appeal has been filed by the Appellant in respect to his RTI Application dated 20.02.2020, filed u/s 7(1) of RTI Act, 2005, complaining non receipt of reply within 48 hours. The Appellant in his First Appeal petition has mentioned that he had filed First Appeal in continuation to his RTI Application at first on 26.02.2020 through mail, but getting no response, he has again filed the present Appeal online with the Commission. Ongoing through the RTI Application, the replies sent by the CPIO and the First Appeal filed by the Appellant it is observed that the Appellant has asked for information regarding action taken on his two emails dated 18.02.2020 & 20.02.2020, which were sent against issuance of facilitation memo to the Appellant in respect to his complaint filed vide Diary No. 663694 dated 18.02.2020 to the Commission as well as other related information. Together with, the Appellant has also asked for information regarding time limits for listing of cases in the Commission for hearing and status regarding compliance of orders No. CIC/KY/C/2015/000158 and CIC/SA/C/2014/000268 by Commission. It is observed that, by considering the RTI Application u/s 6(1), not u/s 7(1), of the RTI Act, the CPIO, CIC, Sh. T. B. J. S. Rajappa, provided point-wise information to the Appellant in respect to point nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 10 of the RTI Application. In respect to point nos. 3 & 9, Sh. Krishan Avtar Talwar, Dy. Secretary & CPIO vide his letter dated 05.03.2020 and in respect to point no. 6, Sh. R. P. Grover, CPIO & DR to IC-YS vide his letter 12.03.2020 provided respective information to the Appellant. The First Appeal should have been filed online through the portal as per prescribed procedure, and not through e-mail, as stated to have been filed by the Appellant. It is also noted that the present First Appeal of the Appellant is time-barred, since it should have been filed within 30 days after receipt of the replies from the CPIOs. Even if this fact is ignored in light of the situation of lockdown due to corona pandemic, the replies given by the CPIOs are factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act. It is worth mentioning here 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 authority can be provided by a PIO. Accordingly the CPIOs, CIC have provided information to the Appellant as per information available in record. Therefore, no intervention is required on behalf of FAA in this matter. NA
2417 CICOM/A/E/20/00177 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-10-2020 Ongoing through the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and First Appeal filed by the appellant, it is observed that the information, as asked for by the appellant, is not clear. It seems that the appellant in his RTI Application has referred his Second Appeal No. CIC/SEBIE/A/2020/800064, decided by commission vide order dated 04.06.2020, and has raised some questionsin respect to the submission made by the respondent public authority in above second appeal and the decision passed by the Commission on basis of that. It is also observed that the Appellant has not asked any specific question which is held by the Commission. The CPIO, in response to the RTI application has informed the Appellant that the above case has already been disposed by the Commission with the observation that, “keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both parties, it was noted that the subject matter relates to settlement of personal grievance and therefore no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the appellant is advised to approach the appropriate forum.” The CIO in his reply has also offered the inspection of the concerned file to the Appellant. 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 authoritycan be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record and he also cannot interpret the information. Hence the reply sent by the CPIO is as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in this matter. NA
2418 CICOM/A/E/20/00176 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-10-2020 Ongoing through the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and First Appeal filed by the appellant, it is observed that the appellant, by referring his second Appeal No. CIC/SEBIE/A/2020/800064, decided by commission vide order dated 04.06.2020, is asking for some information/documents, pertaining to the subject matter of the case. The CPIO, in response to the RTI application has informed the Appellant that the above case has already been disposed by the Commission with the observation that, “keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both parties, it was noted that the subject matter relates to settlement of personal grievance and therefore no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the appellant is advised to approach the appropriate forum.” The CIO in his reply has also offered the inspection of the concerned file to the Appellant. 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 authoritycan be provided by a PIO. Hence the reply sent by the CPIO is as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in this matter. NA
2419 CICOM/A/E/20/00175 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-09-2020 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, ‘whether notice/reminder to recover the penalty amount in case no. CIC/VS/A/2015/901542 decided on 05.07.2019 has been issued after 23.01.2020. Details if any, DD or other mode.” The CPIO, CIC in his reply has informed the Appellant that “As per available record, penalty has been recovered.” It is worth mentioning here 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 information that is not a part of the record. Hence the information provided by the CPIO is as per the provision of RTI Act, 2005. However, the CPIO, Shri Ram Kumar, RTI Cell, Central Information Commission is hereby directed to send the information to the Appellant about the means (DD or other mode) by which the penalty amount has been recovered in the case in question within 15 days after receipt of this order, as has been asked for by the Appellant in his RTI Application NA
2420 CICOM/A/P/20/00087 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 28-09-2020 Please see the file. download pdf