| SNo. |
Registration No |
Appellate Authority Name |
Received date |
Reply Appeal |
Reply Doc |
| 2471 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00149 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
23-08-2020 |
Ongoing through the RTI application, reply sent by the CPIO and the First Appeal made by the Appellant, it is observed that this appeal has been filed against the reply received by the Appellant against point 3 of the RTI application. It is important to note that the Appellant, against point No. 3, asked for information regarding action taken on his letter, that was received in Commission vide diary No. 673602 dated 11.06.2020. The Appellant through this letter had requested to revise the decision in case No. CIC/BHELD/A/2018/637407.
It is important to note that the RTI Act, 2005, does not confer any power to the Commission of review of its own decision. In this context the High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 21.5.2010 in the matter of Delhi Development Authority vs. CIC & Anr. [W.P. (C) 12714/2009] has held that:
“Neither the RTI Act nor the rules framed thereunder grant the power of review to the Central Information Commission or the Chief Information Commissioner. Once the statute does not provide for the power of review, the Chief Information Commissioner cannot, without any authority of law, assume the power of review or even of a special leave to appeal.â€
In light of the above, the reply sent by the CPIO against point No. 3 of the RTI Application is as per the provision of the RTI Act. Hence no further intervention is required on behalf of the undersigned. |
NA |
| 2472 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00144 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
22-08-2020 |
The above appeals have been filed by the Appellant against the replies received from the CPIO, DR to CIC(BJ), CPIO, DR to IC(DP), CPIO, DR to IC(NG) and CPIO, DR to IC(SC) respectively against his RTI Application dated 22.08.2020. Since these First Appeals have been filed for the same RTI application, these are being clubbed together and disposed of by this order.
Ongoing through the RTI application, replies sent by the CPIOs and First Appeals made by the Appellant, it is observed that the Appellant, through his RTI Application, giving reference of his e-mail dated 14.06.2020, asked for information regarding some appeals, as were shownpending for disposalin MIS Reports on CIC’s website. Under this, the appellant asked for grounds of keeping those appeals pending for disposal in MIS Report, the name and designation of that officer responsible for that, expected date for removal of the list of those appeals from the MIS report and copies of documents along with file noting, which were prepared after receipt of e-mail in this regard.
It is important to mention 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. From the replies, sent by the CPIO, DR to IC(DP), CPIO, DR to IC(NG) and CPIO, DR to IC(SC), it is clear that “No such information is available on record.†The CPIO, DR to CIC(BJ), in his reply, has clarified the then status of concerned appeals to the appellant. Therefore the information provided by the CPIOs is factual in nature and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, further intervention is not required on behalf of the undersigned |
NA |
| 2473 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00145 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
22-08-2020 |
The above appeals have been filed by the Appellant against the replies received from the CPIO, DR to CIC(BJ), CPIO, DR to IC(DP), CPIO, DR to IC(NG) and CPIO, DR to IC(SC) respectively against his RTI Application dated 22.08.2020. Since these First Appeals have been filed for the same RTI application, these are being clubbed together and disposed of by this order.
Ongoing through the RTI application, replies sent by the CPIOs and First Appeals made by the Appellant, it is observed that the Appellant, through his RTI Application, giving reference of his e-mail dated 14.06.2020, asked for information regarding some appeals, as were shownpending for disposalin MIS Reports on CIC’s website. Under this, the appellant asked for grounds of keeping those appeals pending for disposal in MIS Report, the name and designation of that officer responsible for that, expected date for removal of the list of those appeals from the MIS report and copies of documents along with file noting, which were prepared after receipt of e-mail in this regard.
It is important to mention 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. From the replies, sent by the CPIO, DR to IC(DP), CPIO, DR to IC(NG) and CPIO, DR to IC(SC), it is clear that “No such information is available on record.†The CPIO, DR to CIC(BJ), in his reply, has clarified the then status of concerned appeals to the appellant. Therefore the information provided by the CPIOs is factual in nature and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, further intervention is not required on behalf of the undersigned |
NA |
| 2474 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00146 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
22-08-2020 |
The above appeals have been filed by the Appellant against the replies received from the CPIO, DR to CIC(BJ), CPIO, DR to IC(DP), CPIO, DR to IC(NG) and CPIO, DR to IC(SC) respectively against his RTI Application dated 22.08.2020. Since these First Appeals have been filed for the same RTI application, these are being clubbed together and disposed of by this order.
Ongoing through the RTI application, replies sent by the CPIOs and First Appeals made by the Appellant, it is observed that the Appellant, through his RTI Application, giving reference of his e-mail dated 14.06.2020, asked for information regarding some appeals, as were shownpending for disposalin MIS Reports on CIC’s website. Under this, the appellant asked for grounds of keeping those appeals pending for disposal in MIS Report, the name and designation of that officer responsible for that, expected date for removal of the list of those appeals from the MIS report and copies of documents along with file noting, which were prepared after receipt of e-mail in this regard.
It is important to mention 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. From the replies, sent by the CPIO, DR to IC(DP), CPIO, DR to IC(NG) and CPIO, DR to IC(SC), it is clear that “No such information is available on record.†The CPIO, DR to CIC(BJ), in his reply, has clarified the then status of concerned appeals to the appellant. Therefore the information provided by the CPIOs is factual in nature and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, further intervention is not required on behalf of the undersigned |
NA |
| 2475 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00147 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
22-08-2020 |
The above appeals have been filed by the Appellant against the replies received from the CPIO, DR to CIC(BJ), CPIO, DR to IC(DP), CPIO, DR to IC(NG) and CPIO, DR to IC(SC) respectively against his RTI Application dated 22.08.2020. Since these First Appeals have been filed for the same RTI application, these are being clubbed together and disposed of by this order.
Ongoing through the RTI application, replies sent by the CPIOs and First Appeals made by the Appellant, it is observed that the Appellant, through his RTI Application, giving reference of his e-mail dated 14.06.2020, asked for information regarding some appeals, as were shownpending for disposalin MIS Reports on CIC’s website. Under this, the appellant asked for grounds of keeping those appeals pending for disposal in MIS Report, the name and designation of that officer responsible for that, expected date for removal of the list of those appeals from the MIS report and copies of documents along with file noting, which were prepared after receipt of e-mail in this regard.
It is important to mention 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. From the replies, sent by the CPIO, DR to IC(DP), CPIO, DR to IC(NG) and CPIO, DR to IC(SC), it is clear that “No such information is available on record.†The CPIO, DR to CIC(BJ), in his reply, has clarified the then status of concerned appeals to the appellant. Therefore the information provided by the CPIOs is factual in nature and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, further intervention is not required on behalf of the undersigned |
NA |
| 2476 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00143 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
20-08-2020 |
On perusal of the Appeal, RTI application and reply of the CPIO, it is observed that the Appellant through his RTI application, alleging that someone in the Commission has manipulated the CIC’s website to prevent the Appellant from filing non-compliance petition in his case decided by the Commission to protect the concerned respondent, has asked for some information, which is hypothetical in nature. The CPIO, Sh. R. Ritarama Murthy in his reply has informed the Appellant that the information sought for is in the form of queries eliciting comments/clarification and hence not information in terms of Section 2(f) of RTI Act.
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 the information and he is also not required to interpret information or furnish replies to the hypothetical questions. Whatever the Appellant has asked for is not the information within the provision of Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. The CPIO has also informed the Appellant the process of filing non-compliance petition to the Commission. Hence, the reply given by the CPIO is factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in this matter. |
NA |
| 2477 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00141 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
19-08-2020 |
The present First Appeal has been filed by the Appellant against the reply furnished by the CPIO Sh. Ram Kumar in respect to the RTI Application dated 19.08.2020 of the Appellant. It is observed that the Appellant has not given any specific ground of his dissatisfaction with the information provided by the CPIO. However, Ongoing through the RTI application and the reply sent by the CPIO, it is observed that the Appellant, through his RTI application, has asked for differences between a Second Appeal and a Complaint under RTI Act, 2005 and has asked for clarification regarding whether the copies of RTI applications, replies received from public authorities are public documents or not.
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 the information and he is also not required to interpret information or furnish replies to the hypothetical questions. Whatever the Appellant has asked for is the interpretation of the provisions of RTI Act and hence commenting on that, is beyond the jurisdiction of a PIO. However, the CPIO has advised the Appellant to go through the FAQ, which are available on Commission’s website. Hence, the reply given by the CPIO is factual and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in this matter. |
NA |
| 2478 |
CICOM/A/E/20/00142 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
19-08-2020 |
Ongoing through the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and First Appeal filed by the appellant, it is observed that the appellant, through his RTI application, has asked for the action taken on his complaints filed before Hon’ble Chief Justice, Supreme Court of India and High Court Calcutta.
It is important to note that as per Section 6(1) of RTI Act, 2005, a person, who desires to obtain information under this Act, has to file application to the Central Public Information officer of the concerned public authority, who is the custodian of information. The information, asked for by the Appellant does not pertain to the Central Information Commission. Further, the Central Information Commission is the Second Appellate Authority for the Departments /Ministries under Central Government and Union Territories and receives Complaints and Second Appeals against them only u/s 18 and 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 respectively.
In light of the above, the reply given by the CPIO is factual in nature and as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in this matter. |
NA |
| 2479 |
CICOM/A/P/20/00063 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
17-08-2020 |
Please see the file. |
 |
| 2480 |
CICOM/A/P/20/00060 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
17-08-2020 |
Please see the file. |
|