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
71 CICOM/A/P/23/00109 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-08-2023 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/2023/00326 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 केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा प्रदान की गई सूचना तथ्यात्मक है और इसमें प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के हस्तक्षेप की कोई आवश्यकता नहीं है। NA
72 CICOM/A/E/23/00274 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-08-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00850 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Foreign powers blocked email , when these mail were sent. Attached - Email account blocked email and details. It is incorrect step of foreign powers. Subject matter being sent - Purchase cheap oil , save money , save the nation from inflation. Consolidated / bulk / Govt. to Govt. deal can be done to get more discount in oil. Purchase of discounted oil can be increased. ASHISH SHANKER ashishshanker88@gmail.com Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 6.40 PM To - mos-pp@nic.in Forwarded message - Subject - RBI should complete the process of Internationalization of Rupee. Completion should proceed. To governor@rbi.org.in Additional note 1 - Our nation become the biggest buyer of oil globally from the country selling Discounted oil in July 22. Mentioned in advice below - 1.99 lakh crores matter below. This advice has achieved greatest success with great speed. Further steps will be taken in such matters. More than 35000 crores benefits obtained by the nation in Oil related advice , according to news reports. As new rules also created to make Rupee International , futher benefits will be achieved in this regards by the nation. Additional note 2 - RBI announces rules for international trade settlement in rupees on 11 July 2022. Independence from financial slavery of foreign powers achieved. Nation become financially more sovereign than before. This great work possible due to advice of applicant to smooth the purchase of oil to RBI and Dignitaries on 9 June 22 and several times afterwards. Mentioned in advice below - 1.99 lakh crores matter. This advice can yield great benefits for the nation. Advice copy - Grievance registration number - PRSEC/E/2022/15719 Grievance Concerns To Ashish Shankar Date of Receipt 09/06/2022 Received By Ministry/Department President Secretariat Grievance Description To The Honorable President Date - 9 June 22 Subject - Suggestion to the Honorable President. Respected Sir According to News one friendly foreign power is providing Crude oil at a Discount of 35 Dollars per Barrel. Our great nation Imports around 50 lakhs Barrels of Crude oil per day. Per day Savings - According to Discount , the savings per day , if for example 20 lakh Barrels of Crude oil is imported at Discounted price per day. 2000000 multiply 35 multiply 78 Equals to - Rs 546 crores , Per day Savings to the nation. Considering 1 Dollar Equals to - Rs 78. Yearly savings - In a year , considering , for example 20 lakh Barrels of Crude oil is Imported at Discounted price per day. 546 crores multiply 365 Equals to - 1.99 lakh crores , Yearly savings to the nation. This important fact should be paid attention. If more than the example amount is Imported the savings will Increase.” DECISION OF THE 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 grounds of appeal mentioned by the appellant in his First Appeal are beyond the purview of the First Appellate Authority, CIC. 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
73 CICOM/A/E/23/00272 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-08-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00796 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Respected Sir/Madam We expected the response to contain the contents of CIC/SA/A/2015/00152 not just the headline/title. We were not able to find the File online on CIC website. Kindly provide navigation or links, if possible. We just want to read the contents as the file number was referred to us in several RTI responses given by Tamil Nadu Chengalpattu District Assistant Director of Survey for our appeals on different RTI requests(total 9). We shall be able to decide upon reading whether we should take our RTI requests further to TN State Information Commission for second appeal as that particular State Department seems to be evading our RTI requests.” DECISION OF THE 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. The information once published in public domain may not be treated as information held by a particular public authority. In the instant case, decisions can be navigated by opening Central Information Commission website i.e. https://cic.gov.in/ then you have to open decisions https://cic.gov.in/decision . 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
74 CICOM/A/E/23/00269 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-08-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00853 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “CPIO did not tell the reason for considering request for condonation of delay as second appeal ipso facto so provided information by CPIO is incomplete. 1-Second page is the request for condonation of delay on the format provided by the central registry. Let me tell you the reason for considering it as a second appeal. Reply of CPIO is as -Your Second appeal vide Diary Number 121423 was examined by Mr Anoop ASO Respected Madam-communication of the applicant dated 09-05-2023 received on 12-05-2023 attached as second page diarised as Diary Number 121423 is a request for condonation of delay not second appeal as claimed incompetent CPIO. Vide second page of attached PDF document. This request for condonation of delay is in compliance with communication dated 28 April 2023 of deputy registrar CR-1 attached as third page of PDF document.” DECISION OF THE 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
75 CICOM/A/E/23/00265 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/23/00055 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “The grounds for first appeal: In my requisition for information dated 12/06/2023 ref no.: CICOM/R/T/23/00055, I had asked for the certified copy of information, as per the RTI copy enclosed. This has been received by the PIO on though the mandated period of 30 days is over, the PIO has sent no reply except 2 point no. 6, which is content of RTI Act and my fundamental right and contravenes the law. My life and liberty is affected due to no reply received from PIO. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo moto to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act. Other important duties of public authority under Section 4 include cataloguing, indexing and computerization of records, publishing certain basic information pertaining to each organization within a specified timeframe, publishing all relevant facts while making important policy decisions and ensuring every information is disseminated widely and in an easily accessible manner for the public. Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. Due to these reasons the First Appeal is made under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act 2005. Please send the First Appeal’s investigation result or order copy or information to my above mentioned address by registered post and email id:balaramv87@gmail.com MY “PRAYER / PLEA” IN THIS FIRST APPEAL: 1) Instruct the CPIO, in writing, to give the complete information forthwith as requested in my RTI Application and send me a copy of the written notification which you have sent to the Public Information Officer. 2) Issue a written warning to the CPIO, under the present Rules and Regulations of Service, instructing him that he should adhere to the time limits specified in the RTI Act 2005 as well as respect the RTI Act in its letter and spirit. And send me a copy of the written warning which you have sent to the Public Information Officer. 3) Inform the concerned CPIO that the appellant will move a Second appeal before the CIC under Section 19(3) and will demand imposition of penalty under Section 20 of the RTI Act, at the rate of Rs. 250.00 for every day of delay (subject to a maximum of Rs. 25,000.00) from the date the information was due till the date the full information is actually given to me. 4) As per Sec 7(6) of the RTI Act, the PIO should now provide me the information "free of Charge" since the provision of information has been delayed beyond the mandated 30 days as provided in Sec7(1) of the RTI Act. 5) As per Sec 19(5) of the RTI Act 2005, during the appeal proceedings, the CPIO, should be asked to explain his “deemed” denial of request for information, since the onus to prove that the denial of request was justified, is on the CPIO. 6) Recommend to the Appellate Authority or State Information Commission that a penalty should Levied on the PIO under Section 20 (10) of the Act 22 of 2005, for not providing the information as mandated in the law. 7) Request you to conduct a proper hearing for this First Appeal and instruct to PIO to supply of required Information.” DECISION OF THE 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. In the instant case, the RTI application no. DOP&T/R/E/23/03715 was transferred from D.o.P.T. to Central Information Commission as RTI No. CICOM/R/T/23/00055 for Point No. 6 only. 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
76 CICOM/A/E/23/00263 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 30-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00678 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that 1. Under the RTI Act, the CIC and State Information Commissions (for short, ‘SICs’) have been created as statutory bodies to decide appeals and complaints against public authorities for non-compliance with the RTI law. 2. It is most surprising that the CIC would utilize the services of Shri S.K. Chitka (who is not even a regular employee) to refuse/obstruct the information for which the Appellant reserves his right to seek copy of the appointment letter issued to Shri S.K. Chitkara, appointing him as the CPIO. 3. Nevertheless, the CIC allowed Shri S.K. Chitakara to misinterpret the definition of Information as provided U/S 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under: PRAYER In view of the position explained above, the FAA is humbly requested to: 1. Direct Shri S.K. Chitkara to provide the Appellant the certified copy of information as early as possible free of cost as the information has been delayed to uphold the principles of justice in the true spirit of the RTI Act, 2005. 2. To ensure that officially designated CPIO handles RTI applications filed with the Commission. DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. In the instant case, 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
77 CICOM/A/E/23/00261 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00639 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating no response within the time limit “Hi Team I have not received the reply of RTI CICOM/R/E/23/00639 Please send a reply asap and also pay the penalty of delay in reply to the below account number” DECISION OF THE 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 replied to the RTI application on 08.08.2023. 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
78 CICOM/A/P/23/00104 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-07-2023 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/2023/00352 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 नहीं है। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि इस आदेश के प्राप्ति के दस दिन के भीतर दिनांक 14.08.2023 तक आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/23/00352 के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पुनः स्पष्ट सूचना प्रेषित की जाये। NA
79 CICOM/A/E/23/00257 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00519 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “This Appeal is filed on following grounds. 1. For that the RTI ONLINE PORTAL has been malfunctioning for about last 1 month, so I was unable to access my RTI and its reply in time. The fact of the malfunctioning of the RTI ONLINE PORTAL is prominently published by DOPT on the landing page. Hence any delay of about 8 days in filing this first appeal may be condoned. 2. For that the CPIO has blatantly lied when he says there is no record for request point No. 1. The decision at page 3 itself states that the said URL has provided by the FAA.A further copy was to be supplied by the FAA to the appellant. So it most defiintely exists on the CIC record and will be found in the e-file.. 3. For the CPIO has blatantly lied for point no. 2 of my request. Once again the FAA has stated in the decision that the URL has been published. Since this is a matter of great public interest it should be given to the whole world and not only to the appllcant. Section 8(1)(i) proviso very clearly says that the entire information and material should be SUO-MOTO accessible to citizens once the Cabinet decision is over. Hence also the entire e-file must be provided to me 4. The CPIO has misread the RTI Act. This is clearly discloseable information, if at all there is third party interest then CPIO should issue section 11 notices to all concerned. Third party interests cannot be used to deny information without following section 11 procedure. In the present case there is no personal information whatsoever in the information requested. 5. The CPIO obviously does not seem to know basics of RTI Act from his replies to point 4 and 6. It is a blatant lie for CPIO to claim for points 1,2,4 and 5 that no record is available. When the Information Commissioners like Mr. Y.K. Sinha, Ms. Vanaja N Sarna can publish the mobile numbers of escorts and call girls in their orders to benefit a notorious pimp who has them in his grip, then surely the URL of the information which is to be mandatorily disclosed under proviso to section 8(1)(i) would also be easily disclosed by Ms. Vanaja N Sarna immediately upon the FAA providing it. 6. That I have come to know that the same notorious pimp also has the Additional Secretary of CIC in his grip and has pressured Ms. Roop Avtar Kkaur to pass some orders in this matter stating that the information I have requested does not fall under definition of information in section 2(f) of RTI Act. To facilitate this Ms. Kaur has compelled her juniors, who are all temporary contract workers, to misplace and tamper the files which contain the information requested. 7. Because a corrigendum was strangely issued in the concerned order. PRAYERS 1. All information requested be traced out by circulating a trace memo to all CPIOs in CIC 2. Third party notice u/s 11 be issued to all third parties. 3. The entire e-files of this matter be given to me. 4. All information be now given to me free of cost. 5. Condone delay” DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. For Point No.1, 2, 4 & 5 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. For Point No. 3 As per Section 8(1)(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual may be exempted from disclosure unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. 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
80 CICOM/A/E/23/00258 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-07-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00391 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “Respected sir, Requested information not received by the applicant. Please provide the requested information at the earliest please.” DECISION OF THE 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-SP) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide information as mentioned by the CPIO in the RTI reply as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 31.08.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA