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
781 CICOM/A/E/24/00005 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-01-2024 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01422 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "CPIO has taken wrong stand in RTI and non justified reasons has been provided.I request CPIO in First Appeal to allow me to inspect related all files in requirements as per RTI and as per RTI Act please allow me to time to hear my case in person before disposing this first appeal" DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. The opportunity of written submission, for the first appeal, provided to the appellant is found to be reasonable opportunity of hearing. The written submissions made by the appellant in his first appeal application are found to be sufficient for consideration by the FAA to arrive at a decision under the RTI Act, 2005. Accordingly, it was felt that the personal hearing as requested by appellant was not necessary. 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
782 CICOM/A/E/24/00006 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-01-2024 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01341 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "FACTS: I made request dated 04/12/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/01341 w.r.t CIC Office Order No. 34/02/2016-CIC/Admin dated 23-09-2016, issued by the then JS(Admin) to internally communicate a policy for handling complaints containing allegations against IC/C-IC received in the Commission (copy of which was provided to me on prior request dated 02/11/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/01241). I sought (1) Copy/copies of the approval(s) of the Commission / C-IC with which the Office Order was issued by the then JS (Admin), (2) File number and date of opening of the file mentioned in para (i) of the Office Order, and (3) Copies of the relevant facts published suo-motu for information of the public about the policy communicated internally by the Office Order. On 02/01/24 CPIO furnished response providing again the same Office Order for point-1&2 and saying for point-3 that No such information is available. GROUNDS: For point-1&2 CPIO has wrongly provided the same Office Order instead of the information sought. For point-3, CPIO has given irrelevant response. Para-35 of the Supreme Court Judgement in CBSE & Anr v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors makes clear that what is not covered in my RTI is information that is not part of the record AND not required to be maintained under any law. Information u/s 4(1)(c) of the RTI Act is required to be maintained under the RTI Act for mandatory publication. Further, the PA is mandated u/s 4(3) & (4) to make all information u/s 4(1) easily accessible with CPIO and CPIO is empowered u/s 5(4) to take assistance from whoever is responsible for suo-motu disclosure u/s 4 to gain the mandated access and provide the information to me. REQUEST: Please have CPIO take necessary assistance and provide the requested information for each point. NB: DOPT, vide OM dated 16/09/2011, had circulated the aforesaid para-35 as elaboration of Para-10 of its guide issued in 2009 but neglected to update para-10 in its updated guide. Decisions based on para-10 of the DOPT guide are unmindful of par-35 of the Supreme Court judgment. " 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
783 CICOM/A/P/24/00001 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-01-2024 Ref RTI No.-CICOM/R/P/23/00587 DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. 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 09.11.2023. The First Appeal has been initiated by the appellant on 26.12.2023 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
784 CICOM/A/E/24/00001 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-01-2024 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01381 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 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
785 CICOM/A/E/24/00002 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-01-2024 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01381 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 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
786 CICOM/A/E/24/00003 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-01-2024 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01381 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 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
787 CICOM/A/E/24/00004 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-01-2024 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01381 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 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
788 CICOM/A/P/23/00217 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-12-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/P/23/00430 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “I am to invite your kind attention towards my RTI application dated 8.8.2023 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-UM) has already replied to the RTI application on 25.08.2023 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
789 CICOM/A/P/23/00218 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-12-2023 आर. टी. आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/23/00665 में सूचना मांगी थी जिसके प्रतिउत्तर में केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रेषित की गई सूचना, सूचना का अधिकार अधिनियम के प्रावधानों एवं मांगी गई सूचना के अनुसार ही है। अतः सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा 2 (च) के प्रावधानों के अनुसार एक जन सूचना अधिकारी केवल सम्बंधित लोक प्राधिकरण के रिकॉर्ड में एक सामग्री के रूप में उपलब्ध सूचना ही प्रदान कर सकता है। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना तथ्यात्मक है और इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है। NA
790 CICOM/A/E/23/00441 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 29-12-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01370 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "Content of the RTI application dated 13.12.2023 is as under: “Details and documents leading to NON-Disbursement of Salary of Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Central Information Commissioner 13 December 2023 (as on date) who joined the CIC on 6 November 2023 and provided all the requisite documents for facilitating release of his Salary viz. Pension Paper, PAN Card details, Commutation of Pension and Bank account details. No information was ever sought from me after my submission of these papers.” I have received the reply from the CPIO on dated 28.12.2023, which is not satisfactory. It is clear that the CPIO has not gone into the merits of the case and mechanically replied the RTI application. Since, the reply given by the CPIO is incomplete, evasive and misleading, therefore present appeal is filed on the following grounds: I have specifically sought copy of all the documents leading to the NON-Disbursement of Salary of Vinod Kumar Tiwari, Central Information Commissioner till 13 December 2023. However, the CPIO has informed that the concerned official has processed my salary in the last week of November, 2023, however, they failed to provide any documentary proof which substantiate their averments. Date-wise steps taken in CIC for payment of salary in case of Vinod Kumar Tiwari vis-à-vis other regular salaried employees has not been given. The CPIO also did not specify on which date and with whom they have made correspondence with regard to salary of Vinod Kumar Tiwari, CIC with concerned officials of Himachal Government and in the PFMS office. Whether physical pay bill for Vinod Kumar Tiwari for the month of November 2023 was prepared on or before 05.12.2023 or not. Any documents wherein recorded reasons for the delay of salary of Vinod Kumar Tiwari, CIC were mentioned has also not given till date." DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. In the instant case, additional inputs/information were sought from the CPIO in respect of the RTI filed. The information received is placed in the attachment. 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. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. download pdf