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
2461 CICOM/A/P/20/00071 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-08-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
2462 CICOM/A/E/20/00156 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-08-2020 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, referring his Second Appeal No. CIC/SEBIE/A/2020/800064, decided by commission vide order dated 04.06.2020, is asking for some documents sent by a Company to SEBI, in respect to allotment and transfer of Shares to the Appellant under NRI Private Placement Promoter Quota. The CPIO, by informing the Appellant that the information asked for by him is not clear, has provided the related documents,which are available in concerned case file and has allowed him inspection of record on mutually agreed date and time. The undersigned is of the opinion that the CPIO has disposed of the RTI Application properly under the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant, if interested, may inspect the concerned case file within 30 days after receipt of this order with prior intimation to the CPIO, Shri S. C. Sharma, DR. to IC(NG). NA
2463 CICOM/A/P/20/00066 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-08-2020 Please see the file. download pdf
2464 CICOM/A/E/20/00155 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 26-08-2020 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, referring his Second Appeal No. CIC/SEBIE/A/2020/800064, decided by commission vide order dated 04.06.2020, has questioned the submission made by the respondent public authority during hearing of above second appeal and the decision passed by the Commission on basis of that, has asked for some documents/information related to the subject matter of the case. 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 also not required to interpret information or furnish replies to the hypothetical questions. Whatever the Appellant has asked for, is the interpretation of decision passed by the Commission. The CPIO is not a competent authority to interpret the decision passed by the Commission and doing so is also beyond the duty and obligation of a CPIO under RTI Act, 2005. However, the CPIO has provided an opportunity to the Appellant to inspect the concerned case file and hence, the CPIO has disposed of the RTI Application properly under the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. The Appellant, if interested, may inspect the concerned case file within 30 days after receipt of this order with prior intimation to the CPIO, Shri S. C. Sharma, DR. to IC(NG). NA
2465 CICOM/A/E/20/00154 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-08-2020 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, 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 submission filed by the respondent public authority to the CIC. He has also complained that some information in respect to the above Second Appeal, has not been provided by the respondent public authority. The CPIO, in response to the point Nos. 1 & 2 of his RTI application, informed him that the desired information, i.e. Annexure D, Submitted by SEBI in above Second Appeal, has already been provided to the Appellant in respect to his earlier RTI Application, registered in the Commission vide File No. CICOM/R/E/20/00473. For rest of the information, the Appellant was informed that “what information is intended to be sought is not clear. It is not, therefore, possible to supply any information." The undersigned is of opinion that the CPIO has disposed of the RTI Application properly under the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. The documents, desired against point No. 1 & 2 has already been supplied earlier to the Appellant, whereas, the queries in respect to point No. 3 & 4 is not clear. The Appellant, in his First Appeal, has not made any specific complaint against the information supplied by the CPIO, CIC. Hence, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in this matter. NA
2466 CICOM/A/E/20/00153 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-08-2020 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, 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, in respect to allotment and transfer of Shares to the Appellant. He has also complained that some information in respect to the above Second Appeal, has not been provided by the respondent public authority. The CPIO, in response to the point Nos. 1 & 2 of his RTI application, informed him that the information asked for by him, is not clear.Accordingly it is not possible to supply any information. Consequently, against rest of the points of the Application, the Appellantwas informed that in these points the Appellant has merely made some statements and no specific information has been called for. The undersigned is of opinion that the CPIO has disposed of the RTI Application properly under the provision of the RTI Act, 2005.The query of the Appellant is not clear. Hence, no specific information can be supplied. Further, 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. Accordingly, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in this matter. NA
2467 CICOM/A/E/20/00150 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-08-2020 Ongoing through the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and First Appeal filed by the appellant, it is observed that the Appellant has asked for information regarding the “procedure mandated by the Information Commissioner to deal with RTI with multiple queries belong to the same public authority but different departments” and whether “the PIOs answer them separately or reply to all the queries that are received in the same application.” The CPIO, in his reply dated 20.08.2020, advised the Appellant to “go through the RTI Act, 2005 and RTI Rules, 2012 available on public domain.” It is worth mentioning here 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 also not required to interpret information or furnish replies to the hypothetical questions. Accordingly, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in this matter. NA
2468 CICOM/A/E/20/00151 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-08-2020 Ongoing through the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and First Appeal filed by the appellant, it is observed that the Appellant has asked for attendance records of last three years of information Commissioner Smt. VanajaSarna. The CPIO, in his reply, has informed the Appellant that “No such information is available on record in the Registry of IC(VN). It is worth mentioning here 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 factual position has been intimated by the CPIO. Accordingly, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in this matter. NA
2469 CICOM/A/E/20/00152 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-08-2020 Ongoing through the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and First Appeal filed by the appellant, it is observed 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 required to interpret information. Whatever the Appellant has asked for is the interpretation of the provision of RTI Act, 2005. Interpreting the provision of the Act, is beyond the duties of a CPIO. The Appellant may go through the RTI Act, 2005, as has been advised by the CPIO, specifically section 5 of RTI Act, 2005, which deals with the issue concerned. Accordingly, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in this matter. NA
2470 CICOM/A/E/20/00148 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-08-2020 प्रार्थी द्वारा वांछित सूचना, जनसूचना 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 कुछ विशेष परिस्थितियों के सन्दर्भ में जन सूचना अधिकारी से विधिकराय की अपेक्षा की है। यहाँ यह उल्लेख प्रासंगिक होगा कि सूचना अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा 2(च) के प्रावधानों के अनुसार एक जन सूचना अधिकारी केवल वह सूचना, जो लोक प्राधिकारी के पास उपलब्ध और उसके द्वारा धारितअथवा उसके नियंत्रणाधीन है, प्रदान कर सकता है। एक जन सूचना अधिकारी से यह अपेक्षा नहीं की जा सकती है कि वह उस सूचना का निर्माण करे, जो रिकॉर्ड का हिस्सा नहीं है। उससे यह भी अपेक्षित नहीं है कि वह परिकल्पित प्रश्नों का जवाब दे अथवा सूचना की व्याख्या करे। उपरोक्त तथ्यों के आलोक में जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रेषित जवाब तथ्यात्मक है और सूचना अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप है। NA