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
791 CICOM/A/E/23/00439 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-12-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01374 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 (DR to IC-AR) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide information as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 06.02.2024. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
792 CICOM/A/E/23/00440 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 28-12-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01315 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "Dear Appellant Authority, Please find herewith attached application for your kind perusal and do the needful. It is inform you that the case order no. CIC/NTPCO/A/2022/667389 is particularly favourable for NTPC and unlawful for me. Kindly do the needful. " 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 grounds of appeal mentioned by appellant in the First Appeal are beyond the domain of the First Appellate Authority, CIC. Further, there is no provision in the RTI Act, 2005 to review the decisions of Second Appeal by the Commission. 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
793 CICOM/A/P/23/00216 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 27-12-2023 आर.टी.आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन किया गया, अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि इस आदेश के प्राप्ति के दस दिन के भीतर दिनांक 12.01.2024 तक आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/23/00664 के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पुनः स्पष्ट सूचना प्रेषित की जाये। NA
794 CICOM/A/P/23/00215 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 26-12-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/P/23/00480 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “I am to invite your kind attention towards my RTI application dated 24.8.2023 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 02.11.2023 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
795 CICOM/A/P/23/00212 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 21-12-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00629 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
796 CICOM/A/P/23/00213 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 21-12-2023 आर.टी.आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन किया गया, अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि इस आदेश के प्राप्ति के दस दिन के भीतर दिनांक 12.01.2024 तक आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/23/00623 के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पुनः स्पष्ट सूचना प्रेषित की जाये। NA
797 CICOM/A/P/23/00214 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 21-12-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00611 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The appellant submitted the first appeal stating that no information received from 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, the CPIO inadvertently replied to the RTI application on the RTI portal and didn’t send the reply to the appellant by speed post. CPIO(DR to IC-VT) is directed to revisit the RTI application as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and provide information to the appellant by 19.01.2024, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
798 CICOM/A/E/23/00436 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 16-12-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01300 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "FACTS: FAA decision dated 09/11/23 No. CICOM/A/E/23/00362 provided NAME of Legal Consultant (LC) involved for a CIC Order that disposed of 8 of my cases. In request dated 19/11/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/01300, I attached list of 16 Orders on my 35 cases and sought (1) (for each) (a) name of LC consulted and (b) LC s reporting officer, and (2) (for clubbed orders) copies to know if LC (a) was consulted case-wise and (b) gave clubbing opinion. By letter dated 11/12/23 CPIO (RTI Cell) provided 3 letters received by him u/s 5(5) from: (a) DR to CIC(HS) saying: No record is available. (b) DR IC(AR) saying point-1a & 1b are exempt u/s 8(1)(j) & (g) and for point-2a & 2b: No such information exist. (c) DR to IC(VKT) conveying that point-1a is not covered u/s 2(f) because assignment to LC is not case-wise and saying for point-1b & 2a that no such copy exists and for point-2b that no such opinion is formed. (Out of the 16 Orders listed in my request, respectively, 8, 6 and 2 - including 2, 3 and 1 clubbed ones - concern PAs allocated to CIC(HS), IC(AR) and IC(VT).) GROUNDS: A. My request could not be duly disposed of u/s 7(1) because the assistance that CPIO (RTI Cell) sought u/s 5(4) from 3 DRs was not rendered u/s 5(5). Instead of giving CPIO material to enable CPIO to make decision u/s 7(1), DRs gave him MUTUALLY CONTRADICTING suggestions for rejecting the request (2 suggesting that the information is not held and 1 suggesting that it is exempt from disclosure). B. The suggestions to CPIO to reject request point-1a contradict also the decision of FAA to provide NAME for one Order / 8 cases. The suggestion to reject u/s 8(1)(j) & (g) is laughable. LCs themselves have publicized their NAMES and more. An internet search result is attached. C. CIC is PA. LCs are its employees. The MINIMAL information sought herein cannot be denied to me in RTI process because it is within my rights, corresponding to mandates, u/s 4(1)(b)(ix) to know NAMES (point-1a), u/s 4(1)(b)(iii) to know REPORTING OFFICERS (point-1b), u/s 4(1)(b)(x) to know if there is case/Order-wise system of remuneration (point-2a), and u/s 4(1)(b)(ii) to know if duties include clubbing opinion (point-2b). D. LCs and DRs are involved in disposal of MY cases. MY cases exist by right u/s 18(1) or u/s 19(3) to approach the Commission that exists u/s 12(1) of RTI Act that exists for transparency and accountability. LC and DR are not even sanctioned posts. Now DRs have denied assistance u/s 5(5) to RTI Cell CPIO for due disposal of my request for information about LCs involved in MY cases. REQUEST: Please provide, as part of decision (as in decision dated 09/11/23), the NAMES sought in point-1a and also the information of REPORTING OFFICERS for point-1b so that I may pursue point-2 otherwise. " DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. In the instant case, it is informed that Legal Consultants have been provided to each Registry. However, the details regarding their case-wise assignment is not available. 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
799 CICOM/A/E/23/00437 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 16-12-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01301 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "FACTS: My request dated 19/11/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/01301 was further to a request for correct citation in place of a mistaken one in CIC Order dated 25/08/23. I had asked the then CPIO to take assistance of the lady present who told me when I ran into her later that she is Legal Consultant. I also asked for her name. I was not provided the citation in view of which my prayer in 6 cases was disallowed. Name of Ms Sharu Priya was provided in decision dated 09/11/23 on appeal No. CICOM/A/E/23/00362. On 19/11/23 I applied for 4 points of information about the role of Ms Sharu Priya in the disposal of 8 of my cases by one 22-page Order issued the same day after hearings held at short notice. On 15/12/23 Admin Section CPIO disposed of No. CICOM/R/E/23/01301 by providing for point-1 the information that No such information is available. On 29/11/23 CPIO DR to CIC(HS) disposed of No. CICOM/R/E/23/01301/1 by informing point-wise, thrice, for the other points: No record available. This appeal is against the disposal of point-1. REQUEST: Please inform the SANCTIONED POST against which Ms Sharu Priya was / is engaged by CIC (i.e., the information sought w.r.t information provided by DOPT of approval for CIC to engage Legal Consultants against sanctioned posts) or the rank / post equivalence of her engagement. GROUNDS: A. The unavailability mentioned by CPIO pertains to him, not me, because the information sought is patently not exempt from disclosure (and CPIO has not cited any exemption). CPIO has failed to take assistance u/s 5(4) to access and provide the information that obviously exists in CIC because: a. Ms Sharu Priya is admittedly Legal Consultant engaged in CIC, b. Legal Consultant is not a sanctioned post, and c. CIC had approval for engaging Legal Consultants against sanctioned posts (in view of which any other recruitment would be with equivalence to sanctioned posts). B. Ms Sharu Priya was admittedly involved in disposal of my cases. My cases exist in CIC by my right to approach u/s 18(1) and u/s 19(3) for disposal by the Commission. Legal Consultants exist in CIC to assist. It is my right u/s 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act to be provided reasons for decisions related to having Ms Sharu Priya assist in my cases. The reasons have not been provided and I seek to know them, starting with the seniority level of Ms Sharu Priya from whom correct citation to replace a mistaken one in Order dated 25/08/23 was not forthcoming in RTI process through the then Deputy Registrar & 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 (Admin 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 22.01.2024. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
800 CICOM/A/E/23/00438 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 16-12-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01301/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "FACTS: My request dated 19/11/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/01301 was further to a request for correct citation in place of a mistaken one in CIC Order dated 25/08/23. I had asked the then CPIO to take assistance of the lady present who told me when I ran into her later that she is Legal Consultant. I also asked for her name. I was not provided the citation in view of which my prayer in 6 cases was disallowed. Name of Ms Sharu Priya was provided in decision dated 09/11/23 on appeal No. CICOM/A/E/23/00362. On 19/11/23 I applied for 4 points of information about the role of Ms Sharu Priya in the disposal of 8 of my cases by one 22-page Order issued the same day after hearings held at short notice. On 15/12/23 Admin Section CPIO disposed of No. CICOM/R/E/23/01301 by providing for point-1 the information that No such information is available. On 29/11/23 CPIO DR to CIC(HS) disposed of No. CICOM/R/E/23/01301/1 by informing pointwise, thrice, for the other points: No record available. This appeal is against the disposal of points-2, 3 & 4, i.e.: (2) the DATES on which CIC files of my 8 cases were forwarded to IC(SP) and to Ms Sharu Priya, (3) COPIES of CIC communications by which CIC files of my cases were made available to Ms Sharu Priya, and (4) COPIES of all communications received from Ms Sharu Priya on my cases. In points-3 & 4, I also sought particulars of the CIC officer who made my case files available and to whom communications about them were submitted. REQUEST: Please ask CPIO to revisit all relevant records and decide points-2, 3 & 4 afresh. GROUNDS: A. The DATES requested in point-2 are part of required record because my case is registered with CIC FILE number and FILE MOVEMENT record is required by the Manual of office procedure. The decision of CPIO for point-2 implies non-compliance of section 4(1)(a) in CIC. B. My request points-3 & 4 arise in absence of disclosure u/s 4(1)(b)(iii) of channels of submission relating to Legal Consultant. There is no doubt that my case files were available to Ms Sharu Priya. (She had them at the hearings and was familiar with them.) The decision of CPIO for point-3 & 4 curiously implies that they were shared informally off-the-record and not through any proper channel. C. My cases are filed in statutory process laid down in the Act and Rules. They lie between me and respondents named by me. They are submitted in trust to the Commission and accessed by its officers and employees in laid down procedure. My 8 cases were shared with a stranger to my cases (information of whose engagement against sanctioned post in CIC is not available with Admin Section CPIO). The decision of CPIO DR to CIC(HS), saying that the Registry has no record of when and how my cases were shared with her, cannot hold if Chapter-V of the Act is to hold." 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