| SNo. | Registration No | Appellate Authority Name | Received date | Reply Appeal | Reply Doc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 841 | CICOM/A/P/23/00188 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 28-11-2023 | Ref RTI No.-CICOM/R/P/23/00415 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “I am to invite your kind attention towards my RTI application dated 26.07.2023 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 the current status, the attachment to the reply of RTI application dated 17.08.2023 has been uploaded on the portal and hard copy of the attachment sent through Dak /speed post on 08.12.2023 by the CPIO. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 842 | CICOM/A/P/23/00189 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 28-11-2023 | Ref RTI No.-CICOM/R/P/23/00523 The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “I am to invite your kind attention the File No. CICOM/R/P/23/00523 My RTI application dated submitted to PIO CIC New Delhi has not mentioned, and to say that the requisite information provided by the PIO is misleading. 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. 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 |
| 843 | CICOM/A/P/23/00190 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 28-11-2023 | Ref RTI No.-CICOM/R/P/23/00524 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “I am to invite your kind attention the File No. CICOM/R/P/23/00524 My RTI application dated submitted to PIO CIC New Delhi has not mentioned, and to say that the requisite information provided by the PIO is misleading. 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. 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 |
| 844 | CICOM/A/E/23/00415 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 28-11-2023 | Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01219 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "Respected Sir Please refer CIC letter No.CICOM/R/P/23/00632 dated 23/11/2023. It informed that I have no received Copy enclosed at annexure -C, which are mentioned in Officiating GM(HR)/PIO, RHQ,NR, New Delhi letter No.AAI/NR/RTI/40RTI-Appeal 2022-23/CIC/2023-24/270-272 dated 11/10/2023. So you are once again humbly requested please provide" Copy of annexure -C " which is sent to your office by RHQ,NR,AAI,New Delhi on 11/10/2023 at the earliest. I have already sent to CIC, Indian Postal Order dated 08/11/2023 for Rs.70/- on 08/11/2023 by speed post." DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. CPIO(DR to CIC) is directed to examine the request of the applicant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, by 10.01.2024. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 845 | CICOM/A/E/23/00414 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 26-11-2023 | Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01125 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "Grounds of First Appeal in RTI Application CICOM/R/E/23/01125 dated 01/10/2023 are as follows: 1. On Information No 1: In file No CIC/SAIL1/A/2020/684990, appellant had made in his favour seventy (70) points spread over para 8, 9, 10&12 of CIC Second Appeal dated 09/09/2020. It is understood that public authority, Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL) must have made counter pleadings so convincing in eyes of law that it compelled honorable CIC to nullify appellant’s pleadings and conclude in favour of public authority SAIL. This is impossible without a written submission satisfying the criteria. For this reason appellant believes CPIO has concealed the correct information. 2. On Information No 2: The information furnished is incorrect, incomplete or misleading for reasons explained below: a. One speed post having consignment number ED349254009IN dated 17/11/2023 was received on 22/11/2023. The article was handed over by postman after taking my signature on his records. On receiving it was found already tempered open. The letter came out in hand without tearing open the envelope leading to believe someone might have tempered it open from beforehand. The letter inside was bearing number CICOM/E/P/23/01125 dated 16/11/2023. There were total fifteen pages, PDF copy of which is attached with this appeal. Kindly request CPIO to confirm whether any page is missing or has been replaced or tempered with or not. b. As the attached PDF copy is self explanatory that pages are neither numbered nor legible. So CPIO may be requested to send another copy with shortcomings rectified. c. Please note that no copy of written submission was ever served by public authority to appellant before CIC hearing in RTI Second Appeal file No CIC/SAIL1/A/2020/695404. If the pages sent by CPIO constitute written submission then it must be having proof of service to appellant too. But there is no such page in the information furnished by the CPIO. d. In file No CIC/SAIL1/A/2020/695404, appellant had made in his favour one hundred twenty six (126) points spread over para8, 9, 10&12 of CIC Second Appeal dated 08/12/2020. It is understood that public authority, Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL) must have made counter pleadings so convincing in eyes of law that it compelled honorable CIC to nullify appellant’s pleadings and conclude in favour of public authority SAIL. This is impossible with a written submission of two lines as contained in para6.0 on page7 of this appeal. e. RTI Application SAIL1/R/E/20/00408 dated 20/06/2020 was replied by CPIO named Sri D.P.Dangwal but written submission contains different CPIO name as in para7.0 on page7 of this appeal and final CIC order contains one more name Sh Som Nath, GM (P&A). There is no authorization letter from competent authority of SAIL for replacing the first CPIO against whom Whistle Blower Act violation had been reported. It is understood that honorable CIC must not have allowed without authorization letter which is missing." DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. The analysis of the decision given in the second appeal is beyond the domain of the First Appellate Authority. Hence, no intervention is required on behalf of the FAA in this matter. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. | NA |
| 846 | CICOM/A/E/23/00412 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 24-11-2023 | Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01232 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "FACTS: I made RTI Online request dated 29/10/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/01232 for COPIES of (1) the work order(s) by which the Intra-VC facility was installed for use of individual ICs in CIC Bhawan (and also, if installed, in the CIC offices at August Kranti Bhawan and Old JNU Campus), (2) the decision(s) of the Commission / Chief-IC in pursuance of which the work order(s) were issued, and (3) instructions / standard operating procedure related to the use of the Intra-VC facility by an IC. I emphasized in endnote that my request was for information in form of COPIES. For point-3 I stated that I desire, in particular, information of instructions / procedure in case any of the parties physically present for the hearing mentions experiencing difficulty (because I had mentioned difficulty on two occasions - towards end of 5th case in the session on 26/04/23 and towards beginning of 1st case in the Intra-VC session on 01/05/23 - and varying actions and consequences had ensued.) On 24/11/23 my request has been disposed of by saying, for each point: No such information is available in record. GROUNDS: A. CPIO has evaded the request by wrongly alleging that the information sought is not available in record. Section 2(f) defines the information that I may request u/s 6 to mean material held by / under control of the public authority. Information about the installation and use of the Intra-VC facility for individual ICs: (a) EXISTS because the facility exists and has been used by individual ICs for conducting hearings for 22 of my cases in 2022-2023, and (b) IS HELD BY / UNDER CONTROL OF CIC because the facility is installed and in use in the CIC Bhawan that is a public building under control of the public authority CIC. B. CPIO has wrongly DISPOSED OF my request without giving the decision in accordance with section 7(1) r/w 7(9) that is required for disposal u/s 7 of a request u/s 6 of the RTI Act. CPIO has provided neither any requested COPIES nor any reason from u/s 8 or 9 for not providing them. REQUEST: The COPIES that I duly sought u/s 6(1) on 29/10/23 may please be provided to me, preferably with the decision u/s 19(6) as per the guidelines in Part-V of the DOPT 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 |
| 847 | CICOM/A/E/23/00413 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 24-11-2023 | Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01233 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "(Appeal regarding supply of unsolicited irrelevant copies) FACTS: Hearings were held in CIC Bhawan for 35 of my cases in 2022-2023. For 22, the IC chose not to be present in the same room as me and used Intra-VC facility. On 29/10/23 I made RTI Online request No. CICOM/R/E/23/01233 for COPIES of (1) Decision/s of the Commission / Chief-IC that an IC may CHOOSE whether or not to be physically present in the same CIC Bhawan room as me for hearings for my cases, and (2) Record/s related to the decision / choice of (a) IC(VN) to NOT be present in the same room on 01/05/23 (3 cases), (b) IC(SP) to NOT be present in the same room on 13/09/22 (5 cases), 26/04/23 (6 cases) and 19/07/23 (8 cases), and (c) IC(SP) to be present in the same room on 25/08/23 (8 cases). On 21/11/23 my request was disposed of on RTI Online by uploading forwarding letter dated 21/11/23 saying: Point No 1, 2(a) to (c) The Central Information Commission had started intra-VC during Covid times and this was continued for the safety of both applicants, respondents and the officers and staff of CIC. In person hearing in the Registry of IC(SP) resumed in the Registry of IC(SP) in the month of July 2023. Certified copies of the Commissions decision/circular for the use of Intra VC/Audio hearing is enclosed (-4 pages). Copies delivered to me on 24/11/23 by speed-post no. ED349258337IN are of: Minutes of CIC meeting held on 16/03/2020 (2 pages), circular dated 16/03/2020 F. No. CIC/Legal/Corona/2020/32 containing directions for 16 to 31/03/2020 (1 page), and public Notice dated 20/04/2020 for updating email id and mobile number for hearings through audio/video conference due to COVID-19 (1 page) GROUNDS: CPIO has NOT provided point-wise decision and has NOT provided any requested copies. The copies provided pertain to the facility briefly made available in 2020 for CITIZENS to not have to be physically present in CIC Bhawan for hearings. NONE EVEN MENTIONS INTRA-VC, the facility for ICs to choose in 2022-2023 to not be physically present in the CIC Bhawan room in which parties are physically present. CPIO has vaguely stated that Intra-VC was CONTINUED (from the facility of 2020 for CITIZENS) and that IC(SP) RESUMED physical hearings in July 2023, but has not provided copies of the decisions by which was (a) the facility for CITIZENS was discontinued for physical hearings (including by IC(SP)), (b) continued as Intra-VC facility for use of IC(VN) and IC(SP) in 2022-23, and (c) discontinued in July 2023 for IC(SP) to resume physical hearings. REQUEST: COPIES of decisions pertaining to Intra-VC facility / system may please be provided to me for each point of my request dated 29/10/23, preferably with the decision u/s 19(6) as per the guidelines in Part-V of the DOPT 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 |
| 848 | CICOM/A/E/23/00411 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 23-11-2023 | Ref RTI No. -CICOM/R/E/23/01269 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "The concerned Public Information Officer has not provided any document regarding the information sought in point no.1 in concerned RTI application." DECISION OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. The information once published in public domain may not be treated as information held by a particular public authority. 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 |
| 849 | CICOM/A/P/23/00185 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 22-11-2023 | Ref RTI No.-CICOM/R/P/23/00531 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “The P.I.O. on the central Information commission couldn’t provide specific information as sought in the R.T.I. Application.†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 |
| 850 | CICOM/A/E/23/00410 | Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR | 21-11-2023 | Ref RTI No. - ICOM/R/E/23/01149 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "To The Concerned FAA CIC, New Delhi Apropos of the RTI Application CICOM/R/E/23/01149 dated 08.10.2023 filed by me, please find first appeal application, as annexed herein as supporting document." 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 |