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
811 CICOM/A/E/23/00428 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-12-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01329 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that the 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
812 CICOM/A/E/23/00425 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-12-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01244 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "Dated: 11.12.2023 To The Additional Secretary & First Appellant Authority, Central Information Commission, CIC Bhawan, , Baba Ganga Nath Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067. Subject - First Appeal u/s 19(1) of the Right to Information Act 2005. Is being filed within Thirty days of the limitation period. Respected sir, Attached please find scanned copy of the first appeal" 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 has replied to the RTI application on 14.12.2023. 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
813 CICOM/A/E/23/00424 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 10-12-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01327 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "FIRST APPEIIATE AUTHORITY CIC OFFICE ( Ms Roop Avtar kaur ) 1. PLEASE REFER MY RTI APPEAL LETTER NO. DP/CIC/IARMY/PIO/D.MITRA DATED 25 SEP 2023 SENT BY SPEED POST TO CIC AND HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN THE COMMISSION OFFICE AND DIARISED WITH DIARY NO. 140000/2023 ON DATE 05/10/2023. MY SENT LETTER IS A FOUR-PAGE LETTER HAVING SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. THIS LETTER OF MINE I HAVE NOT RECEIVED BACK BY REGD OR SPEED POST FROM THE CIC OFFICE TILL DATE, THOUGH CIC RTI REPLY LETTER DT 05/10/2023 WHICH I HAVE NOW DOWNLOADED FROM PORTAL SAYS IT HAS BEEN RETURNED. KINDLY LOOK INTO THIS. 2. MY INITIAL RTI REQUEST LETTER WHICH WAS FILED ON LINE ON 13 JULY 2020 IS DEXSW/R/E/20/00216. THIS IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THIS WAS A DEFICIENCY AS WAS POINTED OUT BY CIC REPLY . PLEASE PERUSE. 3. RTI REPLY TO SERIAL NO.2 ABOVE WAS RECEIVED BY POST BY ME. THIS WAS REPLIED TO BY THEN PIO COLONEL D. MITRA OF HQ BENGAL SUB AREA KOLKATA . VIDE HIS LETTER NO. 001080/RTI/D PAL/Edn dt 16 Sep 2020. HAVING RECEIVED THE PIO COLONEL D MITRA LETTER IN SEPTEMBER 2020, I WAS THEN SATISFIED WITH THE INFORMATION PROVIDED TO ME . HENCE I DID NOT RAISE ANY APPEAL TO FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHIN 30 DAYS. THE COPY OF PIO REPLY LETTER DT 16 SEP 2020 WAS ALSO FORWARDED BY PIO HIMSELF TO TWO SUPERIOR ARMY AUTHORITIES AS YOU CAN SEE AT THE END PORTION OF THE PIO LETTER FOR NECESSARY INFIRMATION. THESE ARMY AUTHORITIES, FIRSTLY RTI CELL ,SENA BHAWAN, IHQ OF MOD , NEW DELHI 110011 AND SECONDLY REGIONAL CENTRE ECHS ,FORT WILLIAM , KOLKATA . UNFORTUNATELY THESE TWO AUTHORITIES HAD NO OBSERVATION OR CORRECTION TO MAKE TO THE PIO REPLY LETTER. HENCE THESE TWO SUPERIOR ARMY AUTHORITIES WERE SATISFIED WITH THE PIO REPLY LETTER OF DTATE 16 SEP 2020. THIS PIO LETTER DT 16 SEP 2020 SAID , APPLICATIONS FOR ECHS JOB BY EMAILS ARE ACCEPTED BY STATION HEADQUARTERS. 4. NOW , I CAME ACROSS AN ADVERTISEMENT PUBLISHED FOR EMPLOYMENT BY ECHS ARMY AUTHORITIES ON 27 DEC 2022 WHICH CLEARLY STATES THAT EMAIL COPIES OF APPLICATION ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. HENCE I HAD SUBMITTED THIS TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE CIC TO TO TAKE PUNITIVE ACTIONS AGAINST THE PIO COLONEL D MITRA FOR PROVIDING ME FALSE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION UNDER RTI LAWS. 5. I HUMBLY THEREFORE SUBMIT TO KINDLY INITIATE PROPER ACTIONS AGAINST THE PIO AS PER RTI LAWS. PLEASE READ THIS WITH MY WRITTEN APPEAL THAT HAS BEEN SENT BY SPEED POST TO CIC ON 25 SEP 2023. SENDER : DIBYENDU PAL, THIS RTI APPLEAL HAS BEEN SENT ONLNE ON 10 /12/2023. " 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. The grounds of appeal mentioned by the appellant in the First Appeal are beyond the mandate 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
814 CICOM/A/E/23/00422 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-12-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01326 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "The First Appellate Authority Central Information Commission New Delhi Subject: Denial of Information under RTI Act and Seeking your intervention: Sir/Madam, This is to submit that I have been provided with the documents/copies of the 2nd Appeal as have been submitted by one RTI Applicant viz. Dr Shakeel Ahmad Sofi/Shakeel Ahmad Sofi. The response of the PIO, CIC reads that I have to submit 2nd Appels afresh which does not pertain to me. I am individual seeking all the documents submitted by Dr Shakeel Ahmad Sofi/Shakeel Ahmad Sofi towards his 2nd Appels before the commission. You may kindly read my RTI Application for detailed information/request. " DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. As per the reply of CPIO, the said second appeals have been diarized and returned to the applicant with a facilitation memo due to some deficiency of the documents. 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
815 CICOM/A/P/23/00206 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-12-2023 Ref RTI No.-CICOM/R/P/23/00595 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating “Please provide following information- 1. Date of withdrawal & transfer of Appeal File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2018/150342 from the Bench of the Hon’ble information commissioner, suresh Chandra to the Bench of the Hon,ble Information commissioner, Ms. Saroj Punhani 2. Certified copy of the order passed by the chief information commissioner of india for the withdrawal of Appeal File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2018/150342 from the Bench of the Hon’ble information Commissioner, Ms. Saroj Punhani. (In respect of procedure for allocation of cases to Bech/ Benches & transferring file from one Bench to other Bench etc., the applicant rely upon Case Law – Kishore Samrite V/s state of U.P & Others – Supreme court of India, 2011 (Order page no. 4/65 to 28/65) 3. Internal correspondence, office memos etc generated in the matter of transfer of Appeal File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2018/150342 4. Date of retirement of Hon’ble Information Commissioner, Shri. Suresh Chandra from CIC, Munirka, New Delhi.” 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. Further, the tenure of the Information Commissioners may be seen from the website. 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
816 CICOM/A/P/23/00207 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-12-2023 Ref RTI No.-CICOM/R/P/23/00592 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating that "I have filed an appeal with state information commissioner on 18.04.2023 against Divisional Personnel officer Central office MSRTC( Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation) Mumbai. The state information Commissioner received my RTI application on 21.04.2023. After completion of 90 days on 24.07.2023 The state information commissioner had transferred the appeal to chief information officer of Maharashtra Mantralaya. Now after completion of 180 days on 24.10.2023 cognizance as well as immediate action is not taken as well as hearing is also not held till date by Chief information officer of Maharashtra so far. Now therefore I am approaching to your office in order to take immediate action in this regard & help in giving immediate justice." 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. 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
817 CICOM/A/P/23/00208 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-12-2023 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/23/00538 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। परन्तु आपने अपनी प्रथम अपील में यह कहा है कि अभी तक कोई सूचना प्राप्त नहीं कराई गई। जबकि केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा पत्र दिनांक 13.10.2023 के द्वारा सूचना भेजी जा चुकी है। केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा दी गई सूचना, दिनांक 13.10.2023 की प्रति, प्रथम अपील के आर्डर के साथ संलग्न की जा रही है I 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
818 CICOM/A/P/23/00205 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-12-2023 Ref RTI No.-CICOM/R/P/23/00633 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted the first appeal stating that 1. That, CPIO has furnished a false statement that ‘RTI’ application was received by him on 20.11.2023 [copy enclosed; page No:-4]. In fact, ‘RTI’ application was received by his office on 14.11.2023 [Postal Delivery Report Enclosed; Page No:-3A]. 2. That, ‘CPIO’ has not only denied the desired ‘Documents’ with mala fide intention but also has furnished a template reply which is a classic example of deadly cocktail of complete negligence and ignorance. 3. That, your undersigned ‘Appellant’ neither requested for any status report Vide Letter No:- RO/WB/DGP/RTI/2022-23/ANB/248; dt:- 03.03.2023 nor Vide Letter dt:-01.11.2023 or present status of the matter. Moreover, passing opinion does not come under the domain of ‘CPIO’. 4. That, nowhere it has been stated in ‘Right to Information Act’ that ‘Document’ can’t be sought while ‘File’ is closed. Such paranoid observation is absolutely against the principle of ‘RTI-Act’. 5. That, denial legitimate access to the information seeker (s) tantamount to the asphyxiation of natural justice which is an infringement upon the fundamental right of an Indian citizen and warrants an appropriate action against ‘CPIO’ without any further delay. 6. That, in pursuance of sub-section (6) of section (7) of ‘Right to information Act’; CPIO’ has no legitimate right to ask ‘cost’ for the desired ‘Documents’ from your ‘Appellant” de novo. 7. That, this matter does not come under the purview of exemption category of “Right to information 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. 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. 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
819 CICOM/A/E/23/00421 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 07-12-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01214 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "CPIO clearly mentioned in his/her reply that “There is no provision in RTI Act for the CIC to revise its own ORDER”/ “No action has been taken on your request for review or correction of the decision received in the commission…..” But I want to bring your kind attention that the maximum numbers of my said Non Compliance submitted petitions are in relation with the noncompliance of the Hon’ble Information commissioners ORDER by the CPIOs of different respective Departments & for those Noncompliance petitions I have not requested for any review/revise or correction of the CIC own ORDER. As an example in Diary No-634609, dated 24.06.2022, I have clearly mentioned that the CPIO not complying with the ORDER of the Honorable Information commissioner & not sent any documents through e-mail or Speed Post as ORDERED. Again, in Diary No-633577, dated 11.07.2023, I have clearly mentioned that the CPIO not complying with the ORDER of the Honorable Information commissioner as even after the promise in front of the Honorable Information Commissioner, after scrutinizing the records retention schedule of govt. of India provided by the said CPIO, I did not find any information about the said matter i.e. record are retained for limited period of 6 years, as mentioned by the CPIO. Again, in Diary No-633764, dated 12.07.2023, I have clearly mentioned that the CPIO not complying with the ORDER of the Honorable Information commissioner as even after the completion of 32(Thirty Two) days I have not yet received the written submission with the annexures from the CPIO, which was ORDERED by the Honorable Information Commissioner to provide me within 7(Seven) days (My said Non Compliance copies are attached with this petition as a proof in pursuance to my aforementioned statement). Most probably, due to his/her busy schedule the said CPIO not get time to read my said Noncompliance Diaries & gives his/her valuable said reply from his/her imagination. Thats why it is possible for him/her to provide such an arbitrary/false reply. So, at last I can conclude that it is quite impossible for any public servant to provide such huge numbers of misleading information in pursuance to a single RTI petition. I therefore most humbly pray that I may be apprised of the correct position as regards the said submitted RTI petition; otherwise the entire exercise shall stand out to be illegal as per RTI Act 2005. So the said CPIO not only violates the guidelines mentioned in the RTI Act 2005 but also misuses the public money in the form of a RTI petition fee of Rs.10/- submitted by a common man of India like me in pursuance to RTI petition. In view of the above, I hope that I have tried my best to explain my ground of appeal & I shall forever be indebted to you if you kindly provide me with the information as per u/s 19(1), u/s 19(6), u/s 6(1) & u/s 6(2) subject to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 that I sought in my said RTI Petition." 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
820 CICOM/A/P/23/00196 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-12-2023 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 23.08.2023 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 26.12.2023 तक आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/23/00607 के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पुनः स्पष्ट सूचना प्रेषित की जाये। NA