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
3331 CICOM/A/2018/60122 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 01-08-2018 In the RTI application, appellant has sought copy of the action taken on his complaint filed under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act diarized vide Dy.No.101672 dated 08.01.18 and also sought reason, if no action has been taken. Shri Talwar, CPIO & DR to CR-1 has forwarded the RTI application to Shri T.K. Mohapatra, CPIO & DR to IC(SA) for providing the information as the said diary number was linked with e-book of case File No.CIC/MCULT/A/2017/169133. In the appeal, appellant has stated that:- “The CPIO provided me the information related to processing of my request. But, I had requested action-taken on my complaint and reason if no action has been taken till-date. It is again requested kindly provide me the requested information as soon as possible, free of cost.” On perusal of the case file, it is observed that Shri T.K. Mohapatra, CPIO & DR to IC(SA) vide his letter No.CICOM/R/2018/50521/SA dated 01.08.2018 has supplied following information:- “Diary No.101672 which is a non-compliance petition in respect of File No.CIC/MCULT/A/2017/169133 is pending for necessary action (if any).” A copy of the reply dated 01.08.2018 is attached herewith. In this regard, it is to mention that on perusal of the RTI application and reply of the CPIO, it is observed that CPIO has provided factual information to the appellant, therefore, no further intervention is required on the part of the FAA, in the matter. NA
3332 CICOM/A/2018/00175 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 30-07-2018 please see the file download pdf
3333 CICOM/A/2018/00176 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 30-07-2018 please see the file download pdf
3334 CICOM/A/2018/60120 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 30-07-2018 In the appeal, appellant has stated that:- “For point no 2, information is not provided. The reply is not satisfactory. Information be provided. For point no 3, incomplete information is provided. The immovable asset information is provided in the said link. However, information regarding movable asset is not provided. It is requested to provided details of movable asset.” On Point 2, appellant has sought royalty details from books published till now by Hon’ble Information Commissioner, Shri M. Sridhar Acharyulu. Shri Sushil Kumar, DS(A) & CPIO has replied that no such information is available on record. On Point 3, appellant has stated that information in r/o immovable assets of Shri M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner has been provided by the CPIO but he has not provided information regarding moveable assets of the Commissioner. In this regard, it is to mention that CPIO can provide only that information, which is held in the record of the CPIO. Further to it, these are personal information and cannot be disclosed in the light of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment dated 31.08.2017 in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009 C.S. Shyam vs Canara Bank Therefore, CPIO has provided factual information on the basis of record available with him. Hence, no intervention is required on the part of the FAA. NA
3335 CICOM/A/2018/60121 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 30-07-2018 In the RTI application, appellant has stated as under:- “Seeking information as to why Shri Divya Prakash Sinha Information Commissioner Central Information Commission New Delhi violated life and liberty provision section 7(1) of RTI Act 2005 and ignored written submission submitted online by the son of the deceased appellant Smt Asha Rani Devi for transfer of this matter to full bench of non-bihari Information Commissioner by his order dated 23.07.2018 in Appeal No. CIC/CICOM/A/2017/119689/SD and CIC/CICOM/A/2017/126308/SD. Please find attached the order dated 23.07.2018 announced by CIC New Delhi for your perusal and kind consideration please.” Shri H.P. Sen, CPIO & DO to IC(DP) vide reply dated 30.07.2018 informed that “you have not sought any information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Therefore, no information could be provided to you.” On perusal of the RTI application, reply of the CPIO and submission made in the appeal, it is observed that the CPIO cannot respond to such hypothetical question as per the decision in the case of Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs Administrative Officer and Others of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decided on 4th January 2010 as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed. Moreover, FAA as well as CPIO of the Commission has no authority to comment on the decision of the Commission, therefore, no action is required on the part of the FAA, in the matter. NA
3336 CICOM/A/2018/60118 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 29-07-2018 On perusal of the RTI application, reply of the CPIO and submission made in the appeal, it is observed that CPIO has provided screenshot of the menu appears for filing of the 2nd appeal through online portal and also provided step by step action to be taken by the appellant for filing online 2nd appeal. Further to it, instructions for filling up the online form of 2nd appeal/Complaint are mentioned at the Home Page of the online portal, therefore, appellant is advised to read carefully the instructions given before filling up the online form. In view of the above, information provided by the CPIO is appropriate, therefore, no further action is required, in the matter. NA
3337 CICOM/A/2018/60117 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 27-07-2018 In the RTI application, appellant has sought following information:- “I refer 29 cases (24 Second Appeals and 5 Complaint) heard by Honorable IC Shri Sharat Sabharwal on 24.03.2017 (Avinash Agarwal Vs. Indian Overseas Bank). In regard to these 29 cases (Second Appeals and Complaints), kindly provide me: 1. Certified copy of record of the proceedings and the daily order of each 29 cases as mentioned above. I refer 7 cases (Second Appeals) heard by Honorable Information Commissioner Shri Sudhir Bhargava on 21.12.2017 (Avinash Agarwal Vs. Indian Overseas Bank). In regard to these 7 cases (Second Appeals), kindly provide me: 2. Certified copy of record of the proceedings and the daily order of each 7 cases as mentioned above. Kindly note that: Kindly provide me certified copy as per OM No. 10/1/2013-IR dated 06/10/2015 issued by DOP&T with subject: Format for giving information to the applicants under RTI Act - issue of guidelines regarding” Shri S.S. Rohilla, CPIO & DO to IC(SB) vide his online reply dated 11.07.2018 has furnished following information:- “1. In 29 cases (Avinash Agarwal Vs Indian Overseas Bank) the daily order sheet is not available in the files. 2. Records of the proceedings are not recorded separately. After the proceedings of a hearing is over, an order is passed by the Honble Information Commissioner, a copy of which has already been provided to you. Daily order sheet may kindly be seen on the website of the Commission i.e., http://cic.gov.in/” RTI application, reply of the CPIO and submissions made in the appeal has been perused. To clarify the matter, Shri S.S. Rohilla, CPIO & DO to IC(DP) has been called for. Shri Rohilla has intimated that the 29 cases were heard by former Hon’ble Information Commissioner, Shri Sharat Sabharwal whose registry was dismantled after he demitted the office on 22.09.2017. Hence, he provided information on the basis of record available in the concerned case files and no daily order sheet is found in the said files. As regards recording of proceedings of 7 cases heard by Hon’ble Information Commissioner, Shri Sudhir Bhargava on 21.12.2017, he submitted that recordings of the proceedings are not done in the Commission and daily order sheets of the said 7 cases are available in the website of the Commission. Appellant has stated in the appeal that he sought certified copy of the daily order sheet as per DoPT OM dated 06.10.2015, which may be provided free of cost. From the above, it is observed that on Point-1 and first part of information on Point-2, CPIO has provided factual information on the basis of record available with him. In regard to daily order sheet as mentioned in second part of point 2, direction is given to Shri S.S. Rohilla, CPIO & DO to IC(SB) to provide certified copy as per DoPT OM No.10/1/2013-IR dated 06/10/2015 to the appellant within 10 working days from the date of receipt of the order. NA
3338 CICOM/A/2018/00173 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 26-07-2018 please see the file download pdf
3339 CICOM/A/2018/00174 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 26-07-2018 please see the file download pdf
3340 CICOM/A/2018/00172 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 25-07-2018 please see the file download pdf