| SNo. |
Registration No |
Appellate Authority Name |
Received date |
Reply Appeal |
Reply Doc |
| 3281 |
CICOM/A/2018/00210 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
07-09-2018 |
please see the file |
 |
| 3282 |
CICOM/A/2018/60138 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
06-09-2018 |
In the RTI application, appellant has sought certified copy of all documents of case File No.CIC/EPFOG/A/2018/140842 and CIC/CCITJ/A/2018/143188. Shri K.L. Das, CPIO & DR to IC(BJ) vide letter dated 06.09.2018 has furnished reply concerning case file No. CIC/CCITJ/A/2018/143188 and Shri T.K. Mohapatra, CPIO & DR to IC(SA) vide online reply dated 29.08.2018 furnished reply in case file No.CIC/EPFOG/A/2018/140842. Both CPIO’s stated that the above said case files are of Ms. Aashima Goyal, therefore, notice u/s 11(1) of the RTI Act sent to her and she objected for disclosure of the information to the appellant. Accordingly, information sought by the appellant denied u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act by both CPIOs.
On perusal of the RTI application, CPIOs’ reply and appeal, it is observed that the appellant has not established any larger public interest in disclosure of information, therefore, FAA is in agreement with the reply furnished by both the CPIOs. |
NA |
| 3283 |
CICOM/A/2018/00206 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
04-09-2018 |
please see the file |
|
| 3284 |
CICOM/A/2018/00207 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
04-09-2018 |
please see the file |
|
| 3285 |
CICOM/A/2018/00208 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
04-09-2018 |
please see the file |
|
| 3286 |
CICOM/A/2018/00209 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
04-09-2018 |
please see the file |
|
| 3287 |
CICOM/A/2018/60137 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
03-09-2018 |
On perusal of the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and appeal, it is observed that deemed CPIO has provided factual information and since first appeal reportedly sent through email dated 25.10.2017 was not found available in the email I/D of FAA, the question of providing information as sought in the RTI application does not arise.
Secondly, deemed CPIO has only intimated about the mode of communication adopted in the Commission for receiving RTI applications, first appeals and 2nd appeals/complaints.
Further taking into consideration of the facts mentioned in the appeal regarding reason for filing of second first appeal through email, the first appeal dated 25.10.2017 sent along with online RTI application dated 02.08.2018 has been registered and being decided separately.
In the 1st appeal, request has been made to order for an enquiry to find out who deleted first appeal application from FAA’s email, is not agreed to in view of the position explained above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. |
NA |
| 3288 |
CICOM/A/2018/60136 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
31-08-2018 |
The appellant sought inspection of RTI Act, 2005 at Central Information Commission. CPIO informed him that it is already available in public domain. In the appeal, appellant stated that “Information available on web is not considered certified so I want inspection at Central Information Commission.â€
The inspection sought is ambiguous. However, it is to mention that CIC has not formulated RTI Act, 2005. The RTI Act, 2005 was passed by Parliament, received the assent of the President of India on 15th June, 2005 and notified by Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India vide The Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section-I, Sl.No.25 dated 21st June, 2005. Therefore, the question of inspection of RTI Act, 2005 at CIC does not arise. |
NA |
| 3289 |
CICOM/A/2018/60135 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
31-08-2018 |
In the appeal, appellant has alleged that though he found reply 31.07.2018 of the CPIO in RTI online software but the same is not received by post to him. He has also not received reply on Point-5 of the RTI application. In this regard, Shri R.P. Grover, CPIO & DO to IC(YA) has informed that postal department returned the envelope containing reply dated 31 .07.2018 along with its enclosures with the remarks that “Is Flat Mai Is Naam Ka Koi Nahi Rehtaâ€. It is observed that there is some difference in the address given in the online RTI application and first appeal. Hence, the appellant cannot blame CPIO for not sending reply. However, a copy of reply dated 31.07.2018 of Shri R.P. Grover and reply dated 08.08.2018 of Shri Kishore Kumar Pukhral, Consultant/CPIO, Legal Cell on Point-5 along with all enclosures of the above said replies are attached herewith. |
|
| 3290 |
CICOM/A/2018/00205 |
AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE |
31-08-2018 |
please see the file |
|