| SNo. | Registration No | Appellate Authority Name | Received date | Reply Appeal | Reply Doc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 751 | CICOM/A/E/24/00025 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 19-01-2024 | Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01403/3 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that CPIO refused access to information requested. 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 (MR Section) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide information as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 29.02.2024. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 752 | CICOM/A/E/24/00026 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 19-01-2024 | Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/T/23/00117 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. In the instant case, CPIO (MR Section) is directed to reply to the Point No. 4 of the RTI application and provide information as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 29.02.2024, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 753 | CICOM/A/E/24/00023 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 17-01-2024 | Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01382 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "First appeal under RTI act Sir, Please refer reply of RTI. It was stated in RTI reply on behalf of sh RK Rao (DK to IC VKT) that "Complaints against PIO are dealt in chronological order. Whenever the turn of your compliant will come you will be informed through speed post". Further applicant/appellant is submitting that it is not clear words in the reply of RTI that whether my complaint is pending or decided because pendency details not mentioned in the reply and if the said complaint is pending . I am not satisfied with the reply. Therefore in view of above said facts it is requested before FAA to please provide clear reply about pendency of said complaint and CPIO please be directed to provide appropriate reply to my RTI." 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 |
| 754 | CICOM/A/P/24/00012 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 16-01-2024 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00261 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that no reply is received by the CPIO and condoned the delay in filing the First Appeal due to medical reasons. 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. In the instant case, the CPIO(DR to IC-SP) has already replied to the RTI application on 09.06.2023,i.e. within the stipulated time limit as per the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 but as mentioned by the appellant in the first appeal of non-receipt of the reply, a copy of the RTI reply is being attached with this order. 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 |
| 755 | CICOM/A/P/24/00013 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 16-01-2024 | Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00645 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “I am to invite your kind attention towards my RTI application dated 16.11.2023 submitted to PIO CIC New Delhi and to say that the requisite information has not been provided by the PIO. Hence it is deemed refused. You are requested to take action under RTI Act and provide the information please." 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. In the instant case, the CPIO(DR to IC-VT) has already replied to the RTI application on 03.01.2024 but as mentioned by the appellant in the first appeal of non-receipt of the reply, a copy of the RTI reply is being attached with this order. 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 |
| 756 | CICOM/A/E/24/00022 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 16-01-2024 | Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01372/2 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. Non-compliance cases are being heard by the Commission on a regular basis. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 757 | CICOM/A/E/24/00020 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 15-01-2024 | Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01384 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "(Appeal for information not provided (refused) for point-3 & 4) FACTS: In a prior case, assistance was provided u/s 5(5) to answering CPIO vide letter No. CIC/IC(AR)RTI/-01300 dated 04/12/23 issued by DR IC(AR) with approval of competent authority. Form of the letter was different from that of others issued u/s 5(5) in the same case. I made request dated 16/12/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/01384 for information of competent authority and copy of approval (point-1 & 2) and rank / designation of, and conduct rules applicable to, whoever in the staff had drafted the letter (point-3 & 4). On 09/01/24 CPIO DR-IC(AR) disposed of my request by providing the information for point-1 & 2 and saying for point-3 &4: No such information exist. REQUEST: I may please be provided the information sought in point-3 & 4 of request dated 16/12/23. GROUNDS: The decision that the information sought in point-3 & 4 is non-existent is contradicted by the copy provided for point-2. The copy provided is of DFA put up on file. In terms of CSMOP it would have initiated by note of an officer having rank / designation and subject to conduct rules." 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 |
| 758 | CICOM/A/E/24/00019 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 14-01-2024 | Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01360 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "The CPIO in respect of point number two provided wrong information. The decision of the File No. CIC/DDATY/A/2022/664874-UM is 02/11/2023 and the information provided by the CPIO Iindicated that copy of decision of the said file had delivered to the Appellant on 27/10/2023. How can it be possible? Kindly provide certified copy of decision of said order to the appellant. " DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. The decision is already uploaded on the cic website. The information once published in public domain may not be treated as information held by a particular public authority. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 759 | CICOM/A/E/24/00018 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 12-01-2024 | Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01328 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that no response has been given by the CPIO. 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 (DR to IC-VT) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide information as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 28.02.2024. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 760 | CICOM/A/E/24/00016 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 12-01-2024 | Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01292 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that CPIO refused access to information requested. DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. 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. 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 |