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
3211 CICOM/A/2018/60168 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 10-11-2018 On perusal of the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and submissions made in the appeal, it is observed that information provided by the CPIO is appropriate, therefore, no intervention is required on the part of the FAA. NA
3212 CICOM/A/2018/60169 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 10-11-2018 On perusal of the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and submissions made in the appeal, it is observed that information provided by the CPIO is appropriate, therefore, no intervention is required on the part of the FAA. NA
3213 CICOM/A/2018/00250 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 09-11-2018 please see the file download pdf
3214 CICOM/A/2018/60167 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 08-11-2018 On perusal of the RTI application, reply of the CPIO and submissions made in the appeal, it is observed that information provided by the CPIO on Point-1 is incomplete in light of Pilot Transparency Audit. Direction is hereby given to Shri Kishore Kumar Pukhral, CPIO (Legal Cell) to revisit Point-1 of the RTI application and provide appropriate information to the appellant within 1 week from the date of receipt of the order. As regards Point-2 is concerned, RTI Act is already in public domain. It is also available in CIC website link https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/ RTI-Act_English.pdf and CPIO is not obliged to make any comment, give advice or opinion, therefore, no intervention is required on the part of the FAA, on this point. NA
3215 CICOM/A/2018/60165 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 06-11-2018 In response to RTI application, Shri T.K. Mohapatra, CPIO & DR to IC(SA) vide his online reply dated 28.09.2018 stated that “No information has been sought in the RTI Application. It seems that you want action taken in respect of your letter dated 12-01-2018 (diary no.609599) on the compliance of the order of the Commission. The said letter is pending in the concerned case file for necessary action (if any).” The appellant was contacted over his given mobile number who informed that CIC’s decision No.CIC/MLABE/A/2017/131099 dated 20.12.2017 has not been complied with by the respondent CPIO for which he has submitted a petition dated 12.01.2018 (Dy.No.609599 dt. 13.01.2018). It was explained to the appellant that the CPIO in his reply has informed that the said letter is pending for necessary action, if any. Therefore, information furnished by the CPIO is factual. However, direction is given to Shri T.K. Mohapatra, CPIO & DR to IC(SA) to intimate latest status of the said petition to the appellant within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. NA
3216 CICOM/A/2018/60166 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 06-11-2018 On perusal of the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and submissions made in the appeal, it is observed that information provided by the CPIO is appropriate, therefore, no intervention is required on the part of the FAA. NA
3217 CICOM/A/2018/60164 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 03-11-2018 In the RTI application, appellant has requested to inform that “employee of Central government/autonomous bodies has right to seek rti. In rti it is necessary to provide motive and reason for saughting rti. Who is custodian for providing information notified for timebound provide of information in rti and penalty imposed for whom CPIO or First appellate authority any judgement in this regard and directive of Court any received by cic. Information is relevant or not is reason soughted.” CPIO, RTI Cell vide letter dated 30.10.2018 has informed that “No other information is available with the CPIO, CIC other than that is available in RTI Act, 2005 & RTI Rules 2012 which are already available in public domain. You may go through the RTI Act, 2005 & RTI Rules 2012.” CPIO, RTI Cell has also provided link to locate RTI Act, 2005 in CIC’s website. In the appeal, appellant has stated that “As a interpretor of rule and apex organization and hope of citizen for protecting the constitutional rights classified under the article……….” In this regard, it is to mention that CIC is not the interpreter of the RTI Act, 2005 and RTI Rules, 2012, therefore, there is no infirmity in the reply of the CPIO. The appellant is advised to go through RTI Act, 2005 and RTI Rules, 2012 and he may also go through the FAQs provided in the CIC’s website https://cic.gov.in/. To explain the above position, the appellant was contacted over his given mobile number but to no avail. NA
3218 CICOM/A/2018/00249 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 02-11-2018 please see the file download pdf
3219 CICOM/A/2018/00248 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 02-11-2018 please see the file download pdf
3220 CICOM/A/2018/60163 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 01-11-2018 In the appeal, appellant has stated that “The RTI application pertains to Indian Overseas Bank. Please confirm that online application is transferred to IOB also for the information sought. Though the signed copy was submitted ONLINE application is to be transferred to Indian Overseas Bank as fees have been paid online.” In this regard, CPIO (RTI Cell), CIC has confirmed that the said RTI application has not been transferred to IOB. On perusal of RTI application, it is observed that some of the points are concerning with Indian Overseas Bank (IOB), therefore, CPIO (RTI Cell) is hereby directed to transfer Points 1 to 11 except Point 4 of the RTI application to the CPIO, IOB within 1 week from the date of receipt of this order. NA