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
3031 CICOM/A/2019/60048 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 25-03-2019 On perusal of the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and appeal, it is observed that information provided by the CPIO seems to be appropriate. In this regard, Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.7526/2009 (CBSE & Anr. Vs. Aditya Badopadhyay & Ors) held that:- “Where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide ‘advice’ or ‘opinion’ to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any ‘opinion’ or ‘advice’ to an applicant.” In view of the above, no further intervention is required on the part of the FAA, in the matter. NA
3032 CICOM/A/2019/60047 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 24-03-2019 Appellant was heard over phone on 02.04.2019. Appellant submitted during the hearing that he requested several times for priority hearing concerning life and liberty but CPIO provided misleading information that priority hearing is not given to anybody except in the cases of very senior citizens with the approval of Hon’ble Information Commissioner. In his separate RTI application, he received reply from following three CPIOs’ of the Commission that:- Shri A.K. Talpatra, DR to CIC(AB) vide reply dated 22.10.2018 informed that “…(2) Once the request for priority hearing is received, the matter is put up to the Hon’ble Information Commissioner for consideration and further necessary action is taken as directed by the Hon’ble Information Commissioner.” Shri S.C. Sharma, CPIO vide reply dated 15.10.2018 informed that “…2. On the grounds mentioned in the second appeal for priority hearing, the matter is put up to the Hon’ble Information Commissioner for consideration and taking into consideration the ground, the Hon’ble Information Commissioner, allows/disallows priority hearing.” Shri K.L. Das, CPIO vide reply dated 12.11.2018 informed that “....2. Priority is given for cases involving life and liberty and cases carrying directions of High Courts etc.” In view of the above replies, appellant filed present RTI application to know the action taken on his various requests for priority hearing in case No.CIC/MODEF/A/2018/631991. Whether as per above CPIOs’ reply, his priority hearing requests put up to the concerned Information Commissioner or not. Keeping into the above submissions of the appellant, direction is given to Shri H.P. Sen, CPIO & DO to IC(DP) to re-visit the RTI application and furnish point-wise appropriate information to the appellant within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of the order. NA
3033 CICOM/A/2019/60045 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 21-03-2019 please see the file download pdf
3034 CICOM/A/2019/60046 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 21-03-2019 please see the file download pdf
3035 CICOM/A/2019/60044 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 16-03-2019 please see the file download pdf
3036 CICOM/A/2019/00061 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 14-03-2019 please see the file download pdf
3037 CICOM/A/2019/00062 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 14-03-2019 please see the file download pdf
3038 CICOM/A/2019/60043 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 14-03-2019 On perusal of the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and appeal, it is observed that the CPIO has rightly informed that Central Information Commission as a public authority is not the holder of the information sought. Information sought in the RTI is concerned with the Assam state, therefore, appellant is advised to approach the appropriate authority of Assam state. NA
3039 CICOM/A/2019/60040 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 10-03-2019 On the ground of appeal, appellant has stated that information provided is incomplete, misleading or false but no mention has been made as to how the information provided is incomplete, misleading or false. However, on perusal of the RTI application and CPIO’s reply, it is observed that point-wise information provided by the CPIO is appropriate, therefore, no intervention is required on the part of the FAA, in the matter. NA
3040 CICOM/A/2019/60039 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 10-03-2019 On the ground of appeal, appellant has stated that information provided is incomplete, misleading or false but no mention has been made as to how the information provided is incomplete, misleading or false. However, on perusal of the RTI application and CPIO’s reply, it is observed that point-wise information provided by the CPIO appears to be justified and appropriate, therefore, no intervention is required on the part of the FAA, in the matter. NA