| SNo. |
Registration No |
Appellate Authority Name |
Received date |
Reply Appeal |
Reply Doc |
| 651 |
CICOM/A/P/24/00038 |
Brig. VIPIN CHAKRAWARTI |
02-04-2024 |
Please see the file. |
 |
| 652 |
CICOM/A/P/24/00039 |
Brig. VIPIN CHAKRAWARTI |
02-04-2024 |
Please see the file. |
|
| 653 |
CICOM/A/E/24/00111 |
Brig. VIPIN CHAKRAWARTI |
01-04-2024 |
I.GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL:
No Reply given by the CPIO (DR to IC-VT) till date.
II.DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY:
Online First Appeal and the RTI application have been perused.
CPIO (DR to IC – VT) is directed to reply the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 29.04.2024, free of cost.
III.The appeal is disposed of accordingly. |
NA |
| 654 |
CICOM/A/E/24/00112 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
01-04-2024 |
Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/24/00179
GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL:
The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that
"FACTS: Public module of CIC software for uploading Orders after 10/09/2016 allows searching 4 types of Orders: Interim, Main, Corrigendum, Compliance. Since 2018 show-cause orders are marked at time of uploading as Interim (Show Cause), Main (Show Cause) and Compliance Order (Show Cause). Those search options, however, have not been added in the pull-down menu for Decision Type on the public module of the software. I made request dated 13/02/24 No. CICOM/R/E/24/00179 for either the software report lists of Interim (Show Cause), Main (Show Cause) and Compliance Order (Show Cause) orders for each CIC / IC since 01/01/2019 or the complete Decision Type options in the CIC software public module. RTI Cell CPIO disposed of my request by letter dated 12/03/24 forwarding thereby letter dated 15/02/24 of DR to IC(AR) conveying to the information sought is not covered u/s 2(f) and letter dated 19/02/24 of DR to CIC(HS) saying it relates to software issue and may be obtained from MR Section, with noting dated 07/03/24 of forwarding to MR Section and noting dated 12/03/24 saying: The information related to show cause case available under the decision tab of CIC website. GROUNDS: I had attached screenshots with my request, and described in note in my request, that show-cause orders are NOT searchable on the public module of the CIC software. My request has been dismissed with 15 words of noting alleging - baldly, and I believe entirely falsely - to the contrary. REQUEST: MR Section CPIO may be asked to give proper decision clearly informing whether or not software reports can be generated for the defined data-field entries Interim (Show Cause), Main (Show Cause) and Compliance (Show Cause) and, if they can be generated, to either provide the requested reports / pull-down menu options or give reason from u/s 8 or 9 of the Act for rejecting the request."
DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY:
The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused.
CPIO(M&R Section) is directed to provide information as desired by the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 07.05.2024.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. |
NA |
| 655 |
CICOM/A/E/24/00108 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
30-03-2024 |
Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/24/00253
GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL:
The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that
"(Appeal for point no. 1(c)(i) & 2) FACTS: I could find on CIC website 30 items relating to Legal Retainers and Legal Consultants (exam notice of 2019 and office orders of 2013-2016 relating to some LCs, including orders mentioning advertisements dated 12/12/2012 and 18/11/2015). I attached screenshots of search results in request dated 25/02/24 No. CICOM/R/E/24/00253 for copies of items NOT found on CIC website. CPIO disposed of on 26/03/2024. Point no.1a & b are not in appeal, as CPIO provided copies of advertisement circular No. NIL dated 12/12/2012 and notice No. 5/1/2012/Admn.-CIC dated 18/11/2015. GROUNDS & REQUESTS (point-wise): Request point no.1c - for copies of advertisements (i) prior to 12/12/2012 and (ii) after 18/11/2015 - has been denied u/s 7(9) saying they are in different files. I have found some later advertisements over the internet. CPIO may please be asked to provide copies of specimens of advertisements issued prior to 12/12/2012. Request point no.2a - for copies of all orders after the last (dated 22/01/2016) published on CIC website - has been denied u/s 7(9) saying they are in different files, except for copy of order dated 29/07/2016 by which Ms Sharu Priya was engaged for 1 year extendable to 3 years. CPIO may please be asked to provide the (extension / re-engagement) orders by which Ms Sharu Priya was LC for my cases in 2023. For the other office orders, I may be allowed to inspect any establishment registers relating to LCs to refine my request (that was made without benefit of disclosure u/s 4(1)(b)(vi) of any statement of categories of documents). Request point no.2b - for all unpublished orders issued prior to 2016 (e.g., for engaging Ms Indrani Mukherjee who is listed in posting order dated 15/01/2016) - has been evaded. CPIO has needlessly provided copies of 2 orders of 2013 available on the website, said nothing of unpublished orders of 2013-2016, and for earlier orders said that efforts are being made to trace files prior to 2012. CPIO may please be asked to access the copies in service book of Ms Mukherjee and of any other LC engaged prior to 2012 and provide copies of specimens of the early orders relating to LCs."
DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY:
The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused.
CPIO(Admin Section) is directed to provide inspection of the relevant file as desired by the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 07.05.2024.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. |
NA |
| 656 |
CICOM/A/E/24/00109 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
30-03-2024 |
Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/24/00254
GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL:
The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that
"FACTS: A number of office orders - all issued in CIC file No. 5/1/2012/CIC/Admn - for engaging Legal Consultants (LCs) in 2013-2016 are found on CIC website. Relieving orders, issued in 2015 in the same file or its Vol-II, are found for 4 of those LCs (viz., Mr Avinash Chandra, Mr Vishal Mishra, Ms Harshita Khana, and Mr Ashutosh Sharma). Some other LCs engaged by orders in that file have publicized past engagement as LCs on private websites (e.g., Mr S Srikanth, Ms Anooja Srivastava, Mr Akber Ahmad, Mr Vivek Sheel, Ms Mompi Dey, etc). In request dated 25/02/24 No. CICOM/R/E/24/00254 I attached the 4 relieving orders found on CIC website and sought copies of all (other) CIC office orders relieving former CIC LCs. CPIO gave decision dated 22/03/24 stating, under Information provided, that: The information is in different files of the section and culling out such information would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Hence the information is denied under section 7(9) of the RTI Act. GROUNDS: Exceptions u/s 7(9) may be used to reject the form in which information is requested. They cannot be used to reject the request because CPIO is specifically mandated u/ 7(1) to reject a request only for any reason from u/s 8 or 9. If the form (i.e., copies) in which I requested the information (of orders relieving former LCs) was impractical because CIC cannot spare staff to cull out orders from different files / different volumes of F. No. 5/1/2012/CIC/Admn, CPIO ought to have offered me the files to inspect and cull out the information myself. REQUEST: CPIO may please be asked to allow me to inspect all volumes of F. No. 5/1/2012/CIC/Admn and any other files in which relieving orders for former LCs have been issued. "
DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY:
The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused.
CPIO(Admin Section) is directed to provide inspection of the relevant file as desired by the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 07.05.2024.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. |
NA |
| 657 |
CICOM/A/E/24/00110 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
30-03-2024 |
Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/24/00255
GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL:
The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that
"FACTS: In request dated 25/02/24 No. CICOM/R/E/24/00255 I attached specimens found on CIC website of office orders for posting Legal Consultants in sub-registries and sought (1) subject title of the file No. 4/4/2013/Admn.-CIC in which they were issued, (2) copies of similar posting orders for (a) sub-registry of former IC(SP) throughout her tenure and (b) all other sub-registries in 2023, and (3) names of female Legal Consultants present in CIC Bhawan on 01/05/2023. In decision dated 22/03/24, CPIO informed the file subject (Transfer/ Posting). This appeal is for the information sought in point nos. 2 & 3. GROUNDS: A. CPIO informed 2 names instead of providing copies of posting orders for point no.2(a). B. CPIO evaded point no.2(b). C. CPIO summarily rejected point no.3 u/s 8(1)(j). Reasoning is unclear because (i) names cannot be exempt u/s 8 or 9 because their disclosure is mandated u/s 4(1)(b)(ix), and (ii) disclosure of attendance of contractual employees of a public authority entails no obvious invasion of their privacy. REQUEST: I may please be provided the copies sought in point no.2(a) & (b) and, for request point no.3, either the names sought or cogent justification for rejection u/s 8(1)(j). "
DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY:
The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused.
In the instant case, CPIO (Admin Section) is directed to revisit the RTI application for point no. 2 & 3 and provide information as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 07.05.2024.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. |
NA |
| 658 |
CICOM/A/E/24/00103 |
Brig. VIPIN CHAKRAWARTI |
28-03-2024 |
In the instant case, the Appellant has submitted the first appeal after 30 days of receipt of reply of the CPIO i.e. reply dated 24.05.2022. The First Appeal has been initiated by the appellant on 28.03.2024 which is well beyond 30 days. Appellant has not specified anything which could be taken as sufficient cause for the appellant not filing the appeal in time. So, this appeal cannot be taken into consideration as the time limit for submission of first appeal has already exceeded. The appeal is not admitted as per Subsection (1) of Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. |
NA |
| 659 |
CICOM/A/E/24/00104 |
Brig. VIPIN CHAKRAWARTI |
28-03-2024 |
On perusal of the online Appeal, RTI application and reply of the CPIO, it is observed that the information given by the CPIO is as per provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no further intervention is required on the part of FAA in the matter. |
NA |
| 660 |
CICOM/A/E/24/00107 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
28-03-2024 |
Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/24/00252
GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL:
The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that
"FACTS: I made request dated 25/02/24 No. CICOM/R/E/24/00252 w.r.t Minutes of CIC Meetings held on 17/11/2015, 09/02/2016 and 014/12/2020 for COPIES of documents containing: (1) Names of the LEGAL RETAINERS whose emoluments the Commission decided on 17/11/2015 (MOM Agenda No.3(ii)) to raise to Rs. 35,000. (2) Names of the two LEGAL RETAINERS whose remuneration the Commission allowed on 09/02/2016 (MOM Agenda No.3 - third bullet) to be enhanced to be at par with the LEGAL CONSULTANTS. (3) Description (including terms and conditions) of the different modes of recruitment of LEGAL CONSULTANTS and LEGAL RETAINER that the Commission noted on 04/12/2020 (MOM point no.4). On 22/03/24, my request was disposed of by letter stating, under Information provided, that: The relevant file in which the matter was dealt is not readily traceable in this section. As soon as the file are traced the available information would be furnished. Efforts are being made to trace the file. GROUNDS: CPIO should not have DISPOSED OF on RTI Online. The information to be provided for disposal u/s 7 is that which is requested u/s 6(1). The information that efforts are being made to trace it etc ought to have been provided by way of interim response, specifying the files being traced and details of the effort being made. Final disposal of RTI requests / revisit directions of FAA with promise to trace and provide the information later, besides being untenable in law, hold no water in the case of CIC. Nothing came of a similar promise made to me, under Information provided, in letter dated 08/02/23 pursuant to disposal of first appeal with revisit direction (copy attached). REQUEST: Please either provide the copies sought with your disposal u/s 19(6) or make an INTERIM ORDER identifying the files and directing CPIO to give me the decision u/s 7(1) to which I am entitled by law (so that the yet to be given decision u/s 7(1) remains open to appeal u/s 19(1) and is not some object de hors the RTI Act 2005). "
DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY:
The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused.
CPIO(Admin Section) is directed to make one more effort to cull out the information desired by the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 07.05.2024.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. |
NA |