| SNo. |
Registration No |
Appellate Authority Name |
Received date |
Reply Appeal |
Reply Doc |
| 661 |
CICOM/A/E/24/00105 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
28-03-2024 |
Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/24/00250
GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL:
The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that
"FACTS: This appeal is for the information sought in point no.2 of my request dated 25/02/24 No. CICOM/R/E/24/00250, i.e., COPIES of the office order / approval on file for constitution of the Selection Committee mentioned in Agenda-1(ii) in the Minutes of CIC Meeting held on 23/04/2013. In decision dated 22/03/24 CPIO has given about 30 words. GROUNDS: I desire information of decision-making process and requested copies of records held by CIC that would have what I need to pursue the information that I desire. For due disposal u/s 7(1) r/w 7(9), CPIO was required to provide either the copies sought or any reason from u/s 8 or 9 or any exception u/s 7(9) for not providing them. Instead, CPIO wrongly disposed of point no.2 by creating some information in form of about 30 words to furnish to me. D.O. No. 359/CIC(SM)/2012 dated 11/05/2012 of the then Chief Information Commissioner to the then Secretary DOPT had elucidated as under that CPIO is NOT to do that: @ What needs to be conveyed to the PIO is that he is not to create any new piece of paper just on the basis of a request for information. All that he has to do is to find the out the appropriate record, closest to the RTI query, and provide a copy of that paper without any comment/opinion/paraphrase of his own. If someone were to ask under the RTI the name of the Secretary, D/oPT, the CPIO should give the photocopy of the order of your appointment and not state your name as he would normally be inclined to do. This is the essence of the definition of information.@ (CIC has misplaced its file copy of D.O. No. 359/CIC(SM)/2012 dated 11/05/2012. Copy accessed from DOPT is attached.) REQUEST: I may please be provided the COPIES sought at point no. 2 of my request dated 25/02/24, preferably with the decision on this appeal as per the guidelines for FAAs in part-V of the DOPT guide u/s 26 of the RTI Act."
DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY:
The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused.
As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collate information that is not a part of the record.
Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act,2005. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. |
NA |
| 662 |
CICOM/A/E/24/00106 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
28-03-2024 |
Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/24/00251
GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL:
The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that
"I made request dated 25/02/24 No. CICOM/R/E/24/00251 for copies of DOPT letter No. 4/2/2012-IR dated 06/02/2015 mentioned in Agenda No. 2 (Engagement of Legal Consultants) in Minutes of CIC Meeting held on 11/02/2015 and DOPT letter No. 4/2/2012-IR dated the 13/10/2015 mentioned in Agenda-4(C) (Legal Consultants) mentioned in Minutes of CIC Meeting held on 30/10/2018. On 22/03/24 my request was disposed of on RTI Online by decision dated 19/03/24 providing copy of DOPT letter dated 13/10/2015 and saying for the DOPT letter dated 06/02/2015 that it is not readily traceable in the Commission and effort are on to trace it. I have received the same decision also by post on 27/03/24. GROUNDS: Out of 2 DOPT letters of the same year on the same subject that would be filed in the same CIC file copy of one has been denied by vaguely saying it is not readily traceable and also that efforts are on to trace it - without saying which file one was traced in and what efforts are on to trace the other that has become untraceable. REQUEST: Please have the DOPT letter No. 4/2/2012-IR dated 06/02/2015 traced before disposal of this appeal and please have copy of it uploaded with your online decision. "
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 |
| 663 |
CICOM/A/E/24/00100 |
Brig. VIPIN CHAKRAWARTI |
26-03-2024 |
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.
There is no CPIO appointed in Registry of IC (VT). Therefore, Nodal CPIO is direct to obtain the required information from the concerned Registry and send the same to the applicant within 10 days of receipt of the order free of cost.
III. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. |
NA |
| 664 |
CICOM/A/E/24/00099 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
23-03-2024 |
Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/24/00245
GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL:
The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that CPIO provided incomplete, misleading or false information.
DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY:
The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused.
As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collate information that is not a part of the record.
Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act,2005. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. |
NA |
| 665 |
CICOM/A/E/24/00098 |
Brig. VIPIN CHAKRAWARTI |
23-03-2024 |
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 |
| 666 |
CICOM/A/P/24/00037 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
22-03-2024 |
Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/24/00075
DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY:
The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused.
As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 only such information as is available and existing and held by the public authority or is under control of the public authority can be provided by a PIO. The PIO is not supposed to create or collate information that is not a part of the record.
Accordingly, the reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter.
As per the Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, the applicant shall file information request with the concerned Public Authority which holds the information.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. |
NA |
| 667 |
CICOM/A/P/24/00036 |
Brig. VIPIN CHAKRAWARTI |
22-03-2024 |
Please see the file. |
 |
| 668 |
CICOM/A/E/24/00097 |
Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR |
22-03-2024 |
Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/T/24/00024
GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL:
The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that
"A: RELIEF SOUGHT: Transfer of appeal with appropriate inputs to CVC w.r.t (i) CVC Complaint 47080/2024 dated 27/02/2024 against Director/CVC Sh Apul Jayaswal based on document dated 27/02/2024 (21st attachment) submitted in CVC Complaint Portal (ii) CVC Complaint 49863/2024 dated 21/03/2024 against CVO/Eastern Railway Sh Anand Bhatia based in document dated 21/03/2024 (28th attachment) submitted in CVC Complaint Portal. B. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: False, misleading and non-satisfactory information/response. The then CPIO/CIC Sh T K Mohatpatra issued response dated 26/02/2015 (First attachment), response date 03/03/2015 (second attachment) and response dated 09/03/2015 ( Third attachment) by way of seeking assistance from PS to the FAA/CIC Sh A K Dash who was incidentally on deputation from postal department. On the date of online disposal dated 19/03/2015 of online RTI request CICOM/R/2014/60427 dated 23/12/2014, email was sent on 19/03/2015 to the then Director/CBI Sh Anil Sinha with subject - Regarding email sent on 27/02/2015 and 21/01/2015 after which online RTI appeal POSTS/A/2014/60435 dated 16/09/2014 updated on 19/03/2015 remains pending. In this regard, grievance DPOST/E/2024/0006913 is pending. C. FACTS: Kindly note following RTI appeal (edited/updated text) CICOM/A/E/23/00416 dated 29/11/2023 CA: INTERIM RELIEF SOUGHT: Kindly transfer this appeal and underlying RTI request to Railway, CBI and CVC w.r.t CVC Complaint 38583/2023 dated 29/11/2023 CB. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: No response within time limits C. FACTS: Kindly note following RTI request (edited/updated text) CICOM/R/E/23/01095 dated 21/09/2023 CBA: REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FROM PIO OF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER MS SAROJ PUNHANI U/S 7(1) OF RTI ACT CONCERNING LIFE AND LIBERTY OF APPLICANT TO BE REPLIED WITHIN 48 HOURS (i) Kindly inform action taken and date of action taken on email dated 20/09/2023 sent to punhanis@cic.nic.in with the subject - Hearing held on 20/09/2023 w.r.t 2 cases (CEA and CBI), 7 complaints registered online with CIC in December 2013 with signed copy sent by speed post and with email praveenpoddar@outlook.com (ii) Kindly provide certified copy of email intimation w.r.t hearing held on 20/09/2023 w.r.t CIC file no. CIC/CBRUI/A/2022/605866. The postal copy apparently sent at the earlier address of applicant were apparently returned by the office of DyCEE/PRS (iii) Kindly provide certified copy of refusal to receive the hearing notice w.r.t file no. . CIC/CBRUI/A/2022/605866 and CIC/CEATY/A/2022/610551 by office of DyCEE/PRS (iv) Kindly transfer the RTI request under 9 series to Railway, CBI, CVC (w.r.t CVC Complaint 28691/2023 dated 20/09/2023) and Department of Posts so that related and updated information can be provided by their PIOs CB. REASONS FOR URGENCY: On 10/05/2023, the applicant has been fraudulently retired from Eastern Railway."
DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY:
The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused.
The reply given by the CPIO is appropriate and as per the provisions of the RTI Act,2005. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly. |
NA |
| 669 |
CICOM/A/E/24/00089 |
Brig. VIPIN CHAKRAWARTI |
22-03-2024 |
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.
There is no CPIO appointed in Registry of IC (VT). Therefore, Nodal CPIO is direct to obtain the required information from the concerned Registry and send the same to the applicant within 10 days of receipt of the order free of cost.
III. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. |
NA |
| 670 |
CICOM/A/E/24/00093 |
Brig. VIPIN CHAKRAWARTI |
22-03-2024 |
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.
There is no CPIO appointed in Registry of IC (VT). Therefore, Nodal CPIO is direct to obtain the required information from the concerned Registry and send the same to the applicant within 10 days of receipt of the order free of cost.
III. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. |
NA |