| SNo. |
Registration No |
Appellate Authority Name |
Received date |
Reply Appeal |
Reply Doc |
| 3221 |
CICOM/A/2018/00246 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
31-10-2018 |
please see the file |
 |
| 3222 |
CICOM/A/2018/00247 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
31-10-2018 |
please see the file |
|
| 3223 |
CICOM/A/2018/60162 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
31-10-2018 |
On perusal of the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and appeal, it is to mention that Central Information Commission and State Information Commission are distinct and separate. Hence, no measure was taken to make RTI online for State Information Commissions by the Central Information Commission. The appellant is advised to take up the matter with the concerned State Government/State Information Commission. |
NA |
| 3224 |
CICOM/A/2018/60160 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
30-10-2018 |
please see the file |
|
| 3225 |
CICOM/A/2018/60161 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
30-10-2018 |
please see the file |
|
| 3226 |
CICOM/A/2018/60159 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
27-10-2018 |
In the appeal, appellant has enclosed copy of FAA, IIT Madras online decision No.IITMD/A/2018/60027. On perusal of the RTI application and first appeal, it is not understood what information and what relief, appellant wants. To clarify the matter, the appellant was contacted over his given mobile number. He stated that he is not satisfied with the decision of the FAA, IIT Madras and, therefore, filed RTI application and first appeal in the Commission to clear his doubts. The appellant has been explained that Central Information Commission is the Second Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, 2005 in respect of RTI matters involving public authorities under the Central Government or UT’s. He was also informed that if he so desired, he may file 2nd appeal against the decision of the FAA, IIT Madras in the Commission separately.
The appellant has no other query and satisfied with the above explanation. |
NA |
| 3227 |
CICOM/A/2018/60158 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
26-10-2018 |
On perusal of the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and submissions made in the appeal, it is observed that factual information has been provided by the CPIO, therefore, no further intervention is required on the part of the FAA. |
NA |
| 3228 |
CICOM/A/2018/00245 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
25-10-2018 |
please see the file |
|
| 3229 |
CICOM/A/2018/00244 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
25-10-2018 |
please see the file |
|
| 3230 |
CICOM/A/2018/60155 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
25-10-2018 |
In connection with DoPT OM No.1/6/2011-IR dated 10.12.2013 regarding implementation of suo-motu disclosure u/s 4 of RTI Act, 2005, appellant has sought following information:-
“1. PLEASE INFORM WHETHER CIC RECEIVED THE COMPLIANCE REPORT COPY OF SOME PUBLIC AUTHORITIES WHO REPORTED COMPLIANCE ON AOB TOB PROCEDURE AS CONFIRMED BY DOPT IN THE OM ATTACHED.
2. PLEASE INFORM WHETHER ANY INSTRUCTION IS ISSUED TO PUBLIC AUTHORITIES BY DOPT OR CIC STATING THAT NON ADHERENCE TO AOB TOB PROCEDURE EXPOSE HON. PRESIDENT TO THE RISK OF BEING IMPEACHED ATTRACTING IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT AND GOVERNOR PRO TEMPORE AS AOB TOB PROCEDURE COMPILED BY COUNCIL OF MINISTERS IS TO ENSURE OATH OF EXECUTIVE HEADS TO PRESRVE PROTECT AND DEFEND CONSTITUTION AND LAW AND LAW AND THEREFORE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING AS COMMANDED IN SECTION 20 OF RTI ACT IS A PENALTY EQUIVALANET TO IMPEACHMENT.â€
Shri S.P. Beck, JS(Admn) vide letter dated 17.10.2018 replied u/s 5(4) that “1 & 2 No information is available.â€
At the last para of the appeal, appellant has stated that:-
“HENCE THIS RTI APPLICATION SHALL BE TREATED AS A COMPLAINT AGAINST ALL PUBLIC AUTHORITIES WHO FAILED TO REPORT COMPLIANCE AND ALSO FOR CONDUCTING THIRD PARTY AUDIT AS INFORMED BY CAG. SINCE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AS REPORTED BY CPIO CIC FAILED TO ADHEE TO INSTRUCTION OF DOPT. AND ALSO ISSUE A CIRCULAR REMINDING ON THE PROVISION OF SECTION 20 REGARDING PENALTY FOR REFUSAL OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION.â€
On perusal of the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and submissions made in the appeal, it is observed that the appellant is not aggrieved with the reply of CPIO but he is aggrieved with non-compliance of DoPT aforementioned OM by the public authorities. In the appeal, appellant himself stated to treat his RTI application as complaint against all public authorities who failed to report compliance. The FAA is confined to the information sought u/s 6 and information furnished u/s 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant may file complaint at appropriate forum, if he so desires.
However, as far as RTI reply is concerned, it is found appropriate and factual. |
NA |