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
2951 CICOM/A/2019/00109 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 03-06-2019 please see the file download pdf
2952 CICOM/A/2019/00108 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 03-06-2019 please see the file download pdf
2953 CICOM/A/2019/00105 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 03-06-2019 please see the file download pdf
2954 CICOM/A/2019/00106 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 03-06-2019 please see the file download pdf
2955 CICOM/A/2019/00104 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 03-06-2019 please see the file download pdf
2956 CICOM/A/2019/60082 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 01-06-2019 Appellant is aggrieved from the reply of CPIO on Points 2, 3 & 4 of the RTI application. On Points 2 & 3, appellant stated in the appeal that speed post numbers provided by the CPIO are not incorrect. In support of the claim, appellant enclosed a screen shot of postal department website. One speed post is showing delivered to ‘Alipur SO’ and another to ‘Chandigarh SO’ whereas the appellant is the resident of Mumbai (Maharashtra). No notices were received by him. On Point 4, CPIO states that no videography of hearing is done. Appellant stated that reply of CPIO is incorrect as the hearing is done through video conferencing and requested to provide revised reply on all these points. On Points 2 & 3, Shri K.L. Das, CPIO & DO to IC(BJ) has been called for who produced a copy of 2nd Appeals submitted by the appellant registered in the Commission vide No.CIC/DOREV/A/2017/179455-BJ and CIC/CCITM/ A/2018/106126-BJ. On perusal of these two 2nd Appeals, it is found that the name of the appellant is Ms Sugandha Gupta and address mentioned as “Ms. Sugandha Gupta, w/o Sh. Lovish Kumar, d/o Sh. S.C. Goyal, C/o House No.1639, Sector 39-B, Chandigarh. As per CPIO, hearing notices were sent at the same address as given in the 2nd appeals. From the above, it is observed that there is no fault on the part of the CPIO and he supplied the correct speed post numbers in his reply. The appellant should have enquired about the hearing notices from the address as given in the 2nd appeals. On Pont-4, reply furnished by the CPIO is factual as no recording of video-conferencing of hearing is done. NA
2957 CICOM/A/2019/60081 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 30-05-2019 On perusal of the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and appeal, it is observed that reply furnished by the CPIO appears to be appropriate, therefore, no intervention is required on the part of the FAA, in the matter. NA
2958 CICOM/A/2019/60079 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 29-05-2019 The appellant states to be aggrieved with the response of the CPIO, RTI Cell who has replied that he may approach the concerned public authority to get the information. In the RTI application, he sought information related to Lokpal and requested to forward his RTI application to Lokpal office. In any case, the CIC is not concerned with the information as the information neither held nor maintained in the Commission. The appellant is expected to exercise due diligence to avail all the information which he seeks either by approaching the concerned public authorities through telephone or visiting the website etc. For the above reason, the response of the CPIO, CIC is appropriate and does not require any interference. NA
2959 CICOM/A/2019/60080 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 29-05-2019 On perusal of the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and appeal, it is observed that CPIO has rightly replied that “It is not clear what information is sought from Central Information Commission…….” Even from the perusal of appeal, it is not clear what relief appellant has sought. Shri TBJS Rajappa, CPIO, RTI Cell informed that before replying the RTI application, he contacted the appellant over his given mobile number but it seems that he has some communication problem, therefore, he was unable to clarify what information he wants from CIC as a public authority. It was explained to him that Central Information Commission is the Second Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, 2005 in respect of RTI matters involving authority under the Central Government or UTs. In view of the above, no relief can be given to the appellant, therefore, the appeal is disposed off. NA
2960 CICOM/A/2019/60077 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 28-05-2019 The appellant states to be aggrieved with the response of the CPIO, RTI Cell who has replied that he may approach the concerned public authority to get the information. In the appeal, he stated that “if it does not belong to the CIC authority, then kindly forward the application to the concerned public authority and answer my query.” In the RTI application, appellant has sought rules related to conversion of religion by a serving government employee. In any case, the CIC is not concerned with the information as the information neither held nor maintained in the Commission. The appellant is expected to exercise due diligence to avail all the information which he seeks either by approaching the concerned public authorities through telephone or visiting the website etc. For the above reason, the response of the CPIO, CIC is appropriate and does not require any interference. NA