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
3291 CICOM/A/2018/60133 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 30-08-2018 In the RTI application, appellant has sought (1) description of the penalties imposed by the Hon’ble Central Information Commission from 2008 till 2017 and (2) description of the individuals/institutions/departments/authorities who have been penalized and have not paid the penalty. CPIO in his reply intimated that the query on point-1 is not clear, however, he has provided a list of total number of cases wherein penalty and penalty amount imposed by the Commission. On point-2, CPIO denied to provide information by stating that this information relates to third party and also it does not seems to serve larger public interest. In the appeal, appellant stated that “1 Clarification to the first query is to obtain information on which and what all cases penalty was issued by the Honble Commission. This information is already in public domain as Hon’ble Commission is publicly issuing its orders. The larger public interest can be derived, as various CPIOs will stop misusing penalty clause under the statue if proper adjudication is sought on this point of law.” In this regard, Shri Krishan Avtar Talwar, CPIO & DR to CR-I has been called for who stated that information sought on Point-1 as clarified by the appellant cannot be provided being third party information and does not seems to serve larger public interest and he also stand with his reply on Point-2. I am in agreement with the stand taken by the CPIO, which is appropriate in the light of the RTI Act and, therefore, upheld the decision of the CPIO. NA
3292 CICOM/A/2018/60134 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 30-08-2018 On perusal of the RTI application, CPIO’s reply and submissions made in the first appeal, it is clarified that although CIC is the Second Appellate Authority under RTI Act, 2005 but CPIO, CIC is oblige to respond on the RTI application pertains to the CIC as a public authority. He does not have any authority to interpret RTI Act. Department of Personal & Training (DoPT), Govt. of India is the Nodal Ministry for the Right to Information Act, therefore, CPIO has correctly transferred Point regarding limit for filing RTI applications. As regards other information sought in the RTI application, CPIO has supplied factually correct information as per the record available with him, therefore, no interference is required, in the matter. NA
3293 CICOM/A/2018/00203 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 29-08-2018 please see the file download pdf
3294 CICOM/A/2018/00204 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 29-08-2018 please see the file download pdf
3295 CICOM/A/2018/00201 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 29-08-2018 please see the file download pdf
3296 CICOM/A/2018/00202 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 29-08-2018 please see the file download pdf
3297 CICOM/A/2018/00200 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 27-08-2018 please see the file download pdf
3298 CICOM/A/2018/60131 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 25-08-2018 In the RTI application, appellant has stated that he wants to do the inspection of work of Commissioners at CIC so that he may be able to know how they works. In response to it, CPIO, RTI Cell has responded that “No specific information has been sought as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, you are at the liberty to specify the document or record required for inspection.” In the appeal, appellant has stated that as per Section 2(j)(i) of the RTI Act, 2005, he has the right to inspect the working of the CPIO, RTI Cell. In this regard, Commission’s decision No.CIC/WB/C/2006/00315 dated 15.11.2006 in which it was held that:- “While holding, therefore, that the refusal of information was not malafide, we find that there is in fact no information sought but only inspection presumably u/s 2 (j), which includes inspection of work. This will have to be read with the wording of the Section as a whole, which allows access to information held by or under the control of a public authority. In this case what has been sought is inspection of work to be executed, and not work already completed and therefore capable of being ‘held’ or ‘controlled’. The reference in the section is clearly towards physically accessible work entailing expenses in execution, transparency in inspection of which is in keeping with the principle of accountability. Read with Section 8(1) (j) of the Act, which protects privacy of service files, we find that the action sought is not ‘information’ as defined in the RTI Act, 2005.” In the light of above, request of the appellant u/s 2(j)(i) cannot be acceded to, therefore, there is no infirmity in the reply of the CPIO. NA
3299 CICOM/A/2018/60130 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 25-08-2018 In the RTI application, appellant has stated that he wants to do the inspection of work of CPIO, RTI Cell, CIC so that he may be able to know how CPIO works and how he respond to applicants. In response to it, CPIO, RTI Cell has responded that “No specific information has been sought as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, you are at the liberty to specify the document or record required for inspection.” In the appeal, appellant has stated that as per Section 2(j)(i) of the RTI Act, 2005, he has the right to inspect the working of the CPIO, RTI Cell. In this regard, Commission’s decision No.CIC/WB/C/2006/00315 dated 15.11.2006 in which it was held that:- “While holding, therefore, that the refusal of information was not malafide, we find that there is in fact no information sought but only inspection presumably u/s 2 (j), which includes inspection of work. This will have to be read with the wording of the Section as a whole, which allows access to information held by or under the control of a public authority. In this case what has been sought is inspection of work to be executed, and not work already completed and therefore capable of being ‘held’ or ‘controlled’. The reference in the section is clearly towards physically accessible work entailing expenses in execution, transparency in inspection of which is in keeping with the principle of accountability. Read with Section 8(1) (j) of the Act, which protects privacy of service files, we find that the action sought is not ‘information’ as defined in the RTI Act, 2005.” In the light of above, request of the appellant u/s 2(j)(i) cannot be acceded to, therefore, there is no infirmity in the reply of the CPIO. NA
3300 CICOM/A/2018/60132 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 25-08-2018 In the RTI application, appellant has sought following information:- “1) Name and designation of employees whose spouse works in Central/State govt/PSU (Spouse case) 2) Name and designation of such employees who have applied for transfer on spouse case from 1 Jan 2016 to 30 June 2018. Date on which their application was received and date on which they were transferred to their desired place. 3) Name and designation of employees who were not transferred after receiving application for transfer on spouse case. Please share reason given for not transferring them. 4) Share copy of memo/rule/office order issued by department in favour of spouse transfer.” 2. Shri Sushil Kumar, CPIO & DS(Admn) vide his reply dated 09.08.2018 stated that “No such information is available.” 3. In the appeal, appellant has stated that:- “Please clarify does your reply mean - no employee of CIC have applied for transfer on spouse case.” In this regard, Shri Sushil Kumar, DS(Admn) cum CPIO has been called for who informed that no such request is received from any regular employees of CIC till date. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of. NA