| SNo. |
Registration No |
Appellate Authority Name |
Received date |
Reply Appeal |
Reply Doc |
| 2961 |
CICOM/A/2019/60078 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
28-05-2019 |
On perusal of the appeal, it is observed that appellant is aggrieved with the response of the CPIO(s) on Points 1(a), 1(b), 2(a), 2(b) and 2(c) of the RTI application. On Point 1(a), CPIO’s reply is appropriate as it is a fact that no audio-video recording is done while hearing cases on video conferencing by the Commission.
On Point 1(b), appellant alleged that incomplete files were shown to him by the CPIO during inspection on 23.05.2019 as there are no note-sheets or daily order sheets available in the files. In this regard, Shri K.L. Das, CPIO has been called for who informed that all 10 files were placed before the appellant for inspection on 23.05.2019 and appellant inspected the files and even sought some copies of documents, which were provided to him. Since the case files as available on the records of the CPIO have been placed before the appellant for inspection, there is no merit found on the allegation of the appellant.
On Point 2(a), it is observed that in compliance of the FAA’s order No.CICOM/A/2018/60073 dated 14.06.2018, Shri R.P. Grover, CPIO & DO to IC(YS) vide letter dated 22.06.2018 informed the appellant that:-
“Despite of efforts and thorough search, the dak diarized vide Dy.No.173942 dated 27.09.2016 could not be traced in the registry. However, appellant may make available a copy of the said dak so that action should be initiated on the same.â€
As per appellant, in reference to CPIO’s reply dated 22.06.2018, he sent the copy of documents of Dy.No.173942 dated 27.09.2016 through speed post No.EU 269639589IN on 09.07.2018, which was received in CIC on 11.07.2018 as per tracking report. Therefore, he believes that the CPIO’s reply is misleading. Direction in this regard is given to Shri R.P. Grover, CPIO & DO to IC(YS) to search the documents, which were again sent by the appellant and reportedly received in the Commission on 11.07.2018 by taking the assistance of CR-1/Dak Section and provide status of the same to the appellant within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
On Point 2 (b), it is observed that the correct case file number is CIC/LS/C/2013/000085, which was inadvertently mentioned by the CPIO as CIC/LS/C/2013/000985. However, information provided by the CPIO on this point appears to be factual.
On Point 2(c), CPIO has provided factual and appropriate information.
In view of the above, appeal is disposed off. |
NA |
| 2962 |
CICOM/A/2019/60075 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
24-05-2019 |
In the RTI application, appellant has sought final cutoff marks of post code 2 (clerical cadre) of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Staff Centralized Recruitment 2016-17. CPIO, RTI Cell informed him that CIC as a public authority has no such information and this is a State matter and the jurisdiction of SIC and CIC are distinct & separate……….
In the appeal, appellant stated that “Why have you not transferred my appeal to the respected public authorityâ€
In the regard, Shri TBJS Rajappa, CPIO, RTI Cell has been called for who informed that since jurisdiction of State Information Commission and Central Information Commission are distinct and separate, there is no option given in the RTI-MIS portal provided by the DoPT to transfer RTI application u/s 6(3) to any department (public authority) of the State Governments. We can only transfer online RTI application u/s 6(3) to the public authorities comes under the Central Government through RTI-MIS portal.
FAA is in agreement with the reply of the CPIO, therefore, no intervention is required on the part of the FAA, in the matter. Appellant is advised to file his RTI application in the concerned public authority. |
NA |
| 2963 |
CICOM/A/2019/60076 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
24-05-2019 |
please see the file |
 |
| 2964 |
CICOM/A/2019/00103 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
23-05-2019 |
please see the file |
|
| 2965 |
CICOM/A/2019/60074 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
22-05-2019 |
On perusal of the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and submission in the appeal, it is observed that CPIO has rightly informed the appellant that no video/audio recordings are done by the Commission for the hearing of second appeals/complaints in the CIC. Since factual information has been provided by the CPIO, no intervention is required on the part of the FAA, in the matter. |
NA |
| 2966 |
CICOM/A/2019/60073 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
18-05-2019 |
On perusal of the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and appeal, it is observed that appellant is not aggrieved with the reply of CPIO of CIC but he is aggrieved that the CPIO of Directorate General of Training, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, New Delhi had transferred appellant’s RTI application No.DEGOT/4/2018/80438 dated 25.10.2018 to the Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar. The concerned CPIO had not intimated the address of First Appellate Authority, therefore, he has requested the Commission to file the present first appeal on his behalf to the FAA of the concerned public authority. In this regard, it is to mention that the appellant’s RTI application has been transferred to the Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar, which comes under the jurisdiction of Bihar State Information Commission and since jurisdiction of State Information Commission and Central Information Commission are distinct and separate, request of the appellant cannot be acceded to. The appellant is advised to file his first appeal himself to the First Appellate Authority of the concerned public authority. |
NA |
| 2967 |
CICOM/A/2019/00102 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
17-05-2019 |
please see the file |
|
| 2968 |
CICOM/A/2019/60071 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
17-05-2019 |
On perusal of the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and submissions made in the appeal, it is observed that as far as information provided by the CPIO of the Commission is concerned, he rightly provided the copy of documents sought in the RTI application. But, CPIO, CIC has not provided true copy of the documents as per DoPT OM No.10/1/2013-IR dated 06/10/2015, therefore, direction is accordingly given to Shri Jeewan Chandra, CPIO(MR) to provide true copy of the documents sought as per DoPT OM mentioned above to the appellant within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. |
NA |
| 2969 |
CICOM/A/2019/60072 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
17-05-2019 |
On perusal of the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and submissions made in the appeal, it is observed that as far as information provided by the CPIO of the Commission is concerned, he rightly provided the copy of documents sought in the RTI application. But, CPIO, CIC has not provided true copy of the documents as per DoPT OM No.10/1/2013-IR dated 06/10/2015, therefore, direction is accordingly given to Shri Jeewan Chandra, CPIO(MR) to provide true copy of the documents sought as per DoPT OM mentioned above to the appellant within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. |
NA |
| 2970 |
CICOM/A/2019/00099 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
15-05-2019 |
please see the file |
|