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
801 CICOM/A/P/23/00211 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 15-12-2023 Ref RTI No.-CICOM/R/P/23/00601 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The appellant submitted the first appeal stating that “It is mostly humbly requested to your good office to take necessary legal actions to provide the information sought in the RTI application, the copy of RTI application has been attached for the sake of convenience.” 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
802 CICOM/A/P/23/00210 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 15-12-2023 आर.टी.आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन किया गया, कि केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी ने अपीलकर्ता को पत्र दिनांकित 27.08.2023 से संबंधित 06 बिंदुओं पर कोई सूचना प्रेषित नहीं करवाई गई है, अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि इस आदेश के प्राप्ति के दस दिन के भीतर दिनांक 04.01.2024 तक आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/23/00631 के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पुनः स्पष्ट सूचना प्रेषित की जाये। NA
803 CICOM/A/E/23/00433 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 15-12-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01248 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "In the RTI application dated 03.11.2023, information sought is the details of action taken by Honorable Commission against the CPIO Punjab and Sind Bank in respect of his non compliance to CIC show cause notice dated 25.05.2023 (copy of show cause notice attached as A-1 at Pg 1-2 in supporting document) The above mentioned show cause notice was issued with respect to File No. CIC/PASBK/A/2020/670977 The objections filed by RTI applicant (copy attached as A-2 and A-3 at Pg 3-8 and Pg 9-11 in supporting document) are also with respect to File No. CIC/PASBK/A/2020/670977. However, the reply by CPIO, CIC is with respect to File No. CIC/PASBK/A/2020/671310 (copy attached as A-4 at Pg 12-16 in supporting document) Therefore, the RTI application was filed seeking information with respect to File No. CIC/PASBK/A/2020/670977. However, the reply provided by CPIO CIC is with respect to File No. CIC/PASBK/A/2020/671310. Therefore the CPIO CIC reply is irrelevant and misleading." DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. CPIO (DR to IC-AR) is directed to provide information to the appellant as per correct File No. i.e. F. No. CIC/PASBK/A/2020/670977 as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, by 22.01.2024. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
804 CICOM/A/E/23/00434 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 15-12-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01291 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "FACTS: I made request dated 15/11/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/01291 for COPIES of (1) all CIC office orders in the matter of action to be taken on a Complaint against non-compliance that are currently in force, and (2) 3 actions, if occurred, in a case in which appellant provided me copy of his complaint dated 02/10/23 against non-compliance (that was attached with my request). CPIO has provided point-wise response informing for point-2 that the actions asked about did not occur in that case and, for point-1, said: After examining the RTI with respect to first point is enclosed in File which can be accessed online on CIC website. REQUEST: Please provide the COPIES sought in request point-1 (of all CIC office orders in the matter of action to be taken on a Complaint against non-compliance that are currently in force), preferably with your decision in terms of the guidelines for FAAs in part-V of the guide u/s 26 of the RTI Act. GROUNDS: I am entitled u/s 7(9) to information in the form requested and I have requested it in form of COPIES. Moreover, I cannot make out from the response of CPIO the File that can be accessed on the website. " 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
805 CICOM/A/E/23/00432 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 15-12-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01288 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "R/Sir, With humble submission and regards, I want to say that, I am attaching herewith the copy of my RTI application, which is self explanatory. Most of the CPIOs are using various orders/judgement passed by hon’ble CIC, New Delhi, while handling RTI requests. Hence, I had requested for confirmation whether the CIC order/judgement mentioned in my RTI application can be used/referred/cited while dealing the RTI applications by concerned CPIOs. Certainly, my RTI request pertains to larger public interest. A suitable reply was expected to my RTI request. But I am very much disappointed with the received reply. In view of the above, I request you to kindly provide me the opportunity of telephonic hearing, for receiving appropriate reply." 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
806 CICOM/A/E/23/00435 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 15-12-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01290/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "FACTS: I had assisted Mr Rajender Singh Azad, a BPL applicant, at hearing for his 2nd Appeal. Order dated 12/09/23 required compliance by 15/10/23. Mr Azad received no communication from the PA. He made complaint dated 22/10/23 against non-compliance. He received no communication from CIC. He asked me if I knew of CIC procedures in a case like his. I did not. I made RTI Online request dated 15/11/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/01290. I attached the complaint that Mr Azad had lodged against non-compliance and sought 3 points of information about procedures in a case such as his. My request was transferred as No. CICOM/R/E/23/01290/1 to Admin Section for Point-1 & 2, i.e., for COPIES of: 1. All CIC office orders in the matter of follow-up action to be taken in the Commission in case a final Order of the Commission requires the Respondent to: (a) make transfer / partial transfer of RTI application to another PA, (b) furnish to the appellant revised reply to whole or part of the RTI application, and (c) provide to the Commission any explanation (e.g., for incomplete / incorrect information or for inappropriate handling of the case), and 2. Agenda papers for, or record of discussion on, Agenda No. 5 (Hearing of cases where more than one public authority has to reply) that was discussed at the CIC Meeting held on 05.06.2018 AND/OR record of the decisions to NOT implead DMRC through notice of hearing in the case in F. No. CIC/DDATY/A/2022/645619 (in which final Order directed partial transfer to DMRC). As on 15/12/23 my request No. CICOM/R/E/23/01290 has not been disposed of on RTI Online and I have also not received any decision by post. On 12/12/23 Admin Section CPIO disposed of No. CICOM/R/E/23/01290/1 saying: 1a, b &c. Available information already provided by the Registry of IC(VT) vide their letter dated 06 Dec 2023. 2. Agenda discussion is a in-house matter of the Commission and hence not available in public domain. GROUNDS: A. I have not received any letter providing the information for point-1 or any intimation of the withdrawal of its transfer vide No. CICOM/R/E/23/01290/1 to Admin Section. B. CPIO has given incomplete response for point-2. He has refused CIC Meeting related information without providing any reason from u/s 8 or 9 and has evaded the latter part of point-2. REQUEST: The requested COPIES for point-1 and, for point-2, either the requested COPIES or reason from u/s 8 or 9 for rejecting the request may please be provided, preferably with decision on appeal as per the guidelines for FAAs in part-V of the 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
807 CICOM/A/E/23/00431 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 14-12-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/01177 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. CPIO is directed to provide information to the applicant as per the Dy. No. of the case given (632732/05-07-2023)(copy attached) as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, by 22.01.2024. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
808 CICOM/A/E/23/00430 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 13-12-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/01303 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "KINDLY PROVIDE INFORMATION IN SOFT COPY AS I FILED MY APPLICATION ONLINE ." 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 has already sent the RTI reply by speed post on 13.12.2023 which was delivered to the appellant on 14.12.2023. 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
809 CICOM/A/E/23/00429 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 13-12-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01258 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "Sir 1. I have filed a RTI No. CICOM/R/E/23/01258, the details of the information sought are related to show cause notice to the Honble IC u/s 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act is as under: 1) I have submitted RTI No. NIOPS/R/E/21/00241 dt 8.3.21 to get information & CPIO has violated sec 7(1) & 7(2) of RTI Act, as the Information was not provided within 30 days. In this regard, the reason should be clearly stated u/s 4(1)(d). 2) A complaint was filed to the Honble CIC u/s 18 & the Complaint was disposed of vide decision 31.8.22, passed by Dr Amita Pandove, IC. After more than 5 months, the adjunct decision 20.2.23 passed by IC is not appropriate. This is incomplete, misleading & not related with the complaint, for which Dr Amita Pandove, IC is at fault. Because as per sec 19(7) of RTI Act, the decision of the CIC, as the case may be, shall be binding. In this regard, the reason should be clearly stated u/s 4(1)(d). 3) Dr Amita Pandove, IC vide adjunct decision 20.2.23, has dropped the complaint without hearing my side, that is a wrong adjunct decision 20.2.23. The decision given by Dr Amita Pandove, IC regarding Complaint No. CIC/NIOPS/C/2021/622548 dt 20.2.23 is in violation of RTI Act. In this regard, the reason should be clearly stated u/s 4(1)(d). 4) In reference to the adjunct decision 20.2.23 of Complaint No. CIC/NIOPS/C/2021/622548, Notice of Show-Cause against CPIO, NIOS, has been dropped on 20.2.23 by Dr Amita Pandove, IC as mentioned that the complainant has filed 120 RTIs, 45 appeals and 35 second appeals & it is wrong statement given by CPIO, NIOS, vide letter No. F-287/2021/NIOS/RCCHD/RTI/CIC/6011 dt 19.9.22 & RD, NIOS, Dharamshala vide letter 21.10.22. It is with reference to Non-Compliance 8.6.23 vide diary No. 628178 submitted Commission link, but I have not received any reply of Non-Compliance from the Honble Commission, New Delhi. In this regard, the reason should be clearly stated u/s 4(1)(d). 5) The CPIO has misguided the Honble Commission, according to the reply of another RTI No. NIOPS/R/E/23/00410, CPIO responded to RTI on 11.5.23, as reply states that: No. of RTIs-76 & in which any RTI is not related to third party information. In this regard, the reason should be clearly stated u/s 4(1)(d). 6) The Notice of Show-Cause against CPIO, NIOS, has been dropped on 20.2.23 by Dr Amita Pandove IC & I have been asked to refrain from proceeding my RTI & Complaint citing it as a matter of abuse of RTI Act, but it is not the fact and is hereby denied from perspective of information seeker. As per the provision u/s 3 of RTI Act, all citizens have the right to information. In this regard, the reason should be clearly stated u/s 4(1)(d). 7) Dr Amita Pandove, IC during the hearing of the complaint on 20.2.23 without providing information to the complainant, the decision 20.2.23 is taken without taking any action against CPIO, under which sec of RTI Act, the order is passed." 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
810 CICOM/A/P/23/00209 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-12-2023 आर.टी.आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन किया गया, कि केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी ने अपीलकर्ता को पत्र दिनांकित 24.08.2023 से संबंधित 06 बिंदुओं पर कोई सूचना प्रेषित नहीं करवाई गई है, अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि इस आदेश के प्राप्ति के दस दिन के भीतर दिनांक 04.01.2024 तक आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/23/00609 के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पुनः स्पष्ट सूचना प्रेषित की जाये। NA