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
3341 CICOM/A/2018/60112 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 25-07-2018 In the RTI application, appellant has sought final penalty order in the case No.CIC/OK/A/2006/00499. Shri H.P. Sen, CPIO & DO to IC(DP) vide his online reply dated 24.07.2018 stated that:- “With reference to your above RTI application, the latest order (No.CIC/OK/A/2006/00499 dated 31.07.2008) of the Commission, as available, is enclosed).” In the appeal, appellant stated that incomplete information has been provided by the CPIO and requested to provide him latest penalty order without which the reply of the CPIO is incomplete. The matter has been enquired with Shri Sen, who informed that no other order is available with him except copy of the order already provided to the appellant. Since factual information has been provided by the CPIO, no further action is required on the part of the FAA. NA
3342 CICOM/A/2018/60113 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 25-07-2018 In the RTI application, appellant has sought inspection of all documents of the CIC. CPIO, RTI Cell has intimated the appellant that he has not mentioned any specific area for inspection. As such it is not possible to provide inspection. In the appeal, appellant has stated that:- “Sir there is no such things in RTI act 2005 that RTI APPLICANTS only inspection a specific or particular document in any department. This is my right to inspection of all documents any department, but if CPIO have difficulty for this I ready to inspection in day by day in several days but for inspection of all documents applicants filed different RTI there is no such type of rules in RTI act 2005. So give me authority for inspection as soon as possible.” On perusal of RTI application, CPIO’s response thereof and submission made in the appeal, I am of the opinion that documents maintained in any office has many categories including from personal information to public document. Many documents falls under exemption category given in RTI Act and further to it, it would disproportionately divert the resources of the office. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the reply of the CPIO. The reply of the CPIO is appropriate and hence no intervention is required on the part of the FAA. NA
3343 CICOM/A/2018/60115 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 25-07-2018 Appellant is aggrieved with the response given by CPIO & DS to CR-II on Points 4 & 6 of the RTI application. On Point 4, appellant has sought details of penalty imposed in the range as a. 0-1000 b. 1001-5000 c. 5001-10000 d. 10001-25000 Ministry-wise & Department-wise. CPIO has responded that “Compiled information as sought in the RTI application is not maintained/available.” On Point 6, appellant has sought “total number of cases handled, number of cases where penalty have been imposed and total amount of penalty of all Information Commissioners including Shri Madabhushi Sridhar Acharyulu, yearwise 2016, 2017, 2018 (till date).” CPIO has provided the information as sought on this point of the RTI application but in the appeal, appellant has stated that “….penalty imposed by Mr. Madhubanshi Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner has not been provided separately for last three years.” On perusal of the above, it is observed that on Poin-4, CPIO has provided information, which is available on record. It is also appropriate in light of Para-15 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment dated 07.01.2016 in WP(C) NO.6634/2011 in the case of Commodore Lokesh K. Batra vs The Registrar Supreme Court of India, which states that:- “On a combined reading of Section 4(1)(a) and Section 2(i), it appears to us that the requirement is only to maintain the records in a manner which facilitates the right to information under the Act. As already noticed above, “right to information” under Section 2(j) means only the right to information which is held by any public authority. We do not find any other provision under the Act under which a direction can be issued to the public authority to collate the information in the manner in which it is sought by the applicant.” As regards Point-6 is concerned, it is observed that in original RTI application, information was sought of all the Information Commissioners, therefore, CPIO has provided information accordingly. Since the CPIO has provided factual and appropriate information, no intervention is required on the part of the FAA, in the matter. NA
3344 CICOM/A/2018/60114 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 25-07-2018 As per appeal, appellant is aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO given on Points 7(C) & (D) of the RTI application. On Point 7(C), appellant has sought details of number of cases against the judgment of Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner where the CPIO has filed appeal in higher courts. Shri Kishore Kumar Pukhral, CPIO, Legal Cell has replied that “Information is not maintained in the manner as sought for. However, total number of approximate 1900 cases has been filed by the CPIO/RTI applicant in the different High Courts.” In the appeal, appellant has alleged that information has been denied to him. On Points 7(D), appellant has sought “costs incurred for ‘C’ above for defending these cases.” The reply of CPIO on both points have been perused and found incomplete and inappropriate. Direction is accordingly given to Shri Kishore Kumar Pukhral, CPIO, Legal Cell to re-visit Points 7(C) & (D) of the RTI application and furnish appropriate information to the appellant within 1 week from the date of receipt of this order. NA
3345 CICOM/A/2018/60116 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 25-07-2018 In the appeal, appellant has stated that information on Points 1,2 & 3 of the RTI application has not been provided. On these points appellant has sought following information relating to Prof M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner:- “1. Total number of RTI appeals handled since his appointment Ministrywise and Departmentwise. 2. Total number of cases where penalties have been imposed Ministrywise & Departmentwise. 3. Total amount of penalty which have been levied in all cases Ministrywise & Departmentwise.” On perusal of the case file, it is observed that reply on Point-1 has been furnished by Shri Jeewan Chandra, CPIO(MR) vide letter dated 19.06.2018, which is as under:- “For point 1: Information about total Number of RTI Appeals/Complaints handled by Hon’ble Information Commissioner Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu are available on CIC website – www.cic.gov.in For Detail from 2016 visit MIS report – Monthly Progress Report (Reports After 2016), or Direct link – http://dsscic/nic.in/online-monthly-progress-report/view For Detail till 2015 visit MIS report – Monthly Progress Report (Up to 2015), or Direct link – http://ciconline.nic.in/rti/docs/public reports.php The Ministry and Departments allotted to the Information Commissioner Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu may be seen at – https://cic.gov.in/sites/default/files/Circulars%20&Noification/pa.pdf And the public authority wise Appeal/complaints data can be obtained from the link given below. http://dsscic.nic.in/cause-list-report-web/view-decision-all/1” On Point-2 & 3, Shri K.A. Talwar, CPIO & DR to (CR-II) vide letter dated 26.07.2018 has stated as under:- “This is in continuation of this office letter no.CICOM/R/2018/50385/CR II dated 27.06.2018 wherein reply to points 2 & 3 has been left inadvertently. The information against point 2 & 3 is given as under:- 2-3: Requisite information as per Ministry wise & Department wise that too specific Central Information Commissioner wise is not maintained. Shri R L Gupta, the then DR & CPIO (CR II) who has sent the previous letter dated 27.06.2018 has since been demitted the office, now the undersigned is in charge of CR II section. As such, was not aware of non supply of information against point no.2 and 3. As such, delay in responding is highly regretted.” From the above, it is observed that point-wise information furnished by the CPIOs, is appropriate and factual, therefore, no action is required on the part of the FAA. NA
3346 CICOM/A/2018/60108 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 24-07-2018 please see the file download pdf
3347 CICOM/A/2018/60107 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 24-07-2018 please see the file download pdf
3348 CICOM/A/2018/60109 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 24-07-2018 please see the file download pdf
3349 CICOM/A/2018/60111 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 24-07-2018 please see the file download pdf
3350 CICOM/A/2018/60110 AJITKUMAR VASANTRAO SONTAKKE 24-07-2018 please see the file download pdf