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
881 CICOM/A/P/23/00171 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-11-2023 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 20.11.2023 तक आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/23/00543 के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पुनः स्पष्ट सूचना प्रेषित की जाये। NA
882 CICOM/A/P/23/00172 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-11-2023 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/23/00491 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। पुनः सुनवाई का कोई प्रावधान नहीं 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
883 CICOM/A/P/23/00173 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-11-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00505 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “I am to invite your kind attention towards the File No. CICOM/R/P/23/00505 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
884 CICOM/A/E/23/00393 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 04-11-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/X/23/00010 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "DOPT transferred twice to CIC my request dated 29.09.2023 No. DOP&T/R/E/23/06179: first in whole (for point-1a, 1b, 1c & 2) as No. CICOM/R/T/23/00090 dated 03.10.2023 and then in part (for point-1c & 2) as No. CICOM/R/X/23/00010 dated 05.10.2023. On 01.11.2023 CIC Consultant (Admin) disposed of the whole transfer No. CICOM/R/T/23/00090. I have filed appeal dated 02.11.2023 No. CICOM/A/E/23/00385 for the information sought in point-1c. On 03.11.2023 CIC Consultant (Admin) disposed of the partial transfer No. CICOM/R/X/23/00010 with identical response, including by neglecting to either upload with the RTI Online disposal or enclose with the decision sent by post the office order (No.34/02/2016-CIC/Admn dated 23-09-2016 regarding CIC policy on complaint against Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioners) said to be attached for point-2 (i.e., of the cic policy mentioned in the CPGRAMS closure dated 05/07/23 of my Helpline petition dated 07/06/23 for Presidential reference to the Supreme Court for inquiry u/s 14(1) of the RTI Act). GROUNDS: The office order dated 23-09-2016 that CPIO has twice said is attached and twice neglected to actually attach may or may not be the cic policy information sought because (a) it is not found on CIC website, and (b) it was not mentioned in any of the following previous decisions: i. On 05/07/23 JS(Admin) closed the CPGRAMS case, mentioning cic policy but no office order. ii. On 13/07/23 you rejected my CPGRAMS appeal No. DOPAT/E/A/23/0001211 with no mention of any office order (although my appeal was against the non-transparent closure mentioning dealing by process unpublished u/s 4(1)(b) in accordance with a cic policy unpublished u/s 4(1)(c) and also undisclosed to me in absence of reasons u/s 4(1)(d) of the RTI Act). iii. On 11/08/23 the same CPIO disposed of, by informing that no such information is available, DOPT transfer No. CICOM/R/T/23/00063 of my request dated 13/07/23 in which the cic policy was sought in point-1. iv. On 12/09/23 you disposed of my appeal No. CICOM/A/E/23/00317 for information of the cic policy without informing any office order and by decision conveying that the information is not existing / available in / held by / under control of CIC. v. On 12/09/23 the same CPIO disposed of, by informing that no such information is available, DOPT transfer No. CICOM/R/T/23/00071 of the partial transfer by the President-s Secretariat to DOPT of my request dated 02/08/23 for copies related to the roles of DOPT and CIC in section 14 of the RTI Act. REQUEST: Kindly examine the office order No. 34/02/2016-CIC/Admn dated 23-09-2016 and decide (and clearly and specifically convey in your decision) whether or not it is the copy sought in point-2 of my request transferred to CIC by DOPT on 03 & 05/10/23. If it is the copy sought, please upload it with your decision." 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
885 CICOM/A/E/23/00392 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-11-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01158 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "Details not provided" 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
886 CICOM/A/P/23/00166 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-11-2023 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/23/00511 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
887 CICOM/A/E/23/00390 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-11-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/00780 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "Provided incomplete misleading or false information. Kindly provide complete and correct information." 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
888 CICOM/A/E/23/00385 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-11-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/T/23/00090 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "Please recall that my petition to President-s Secretariat for reference to the Supreme Court for an inquiry u/s 14(1) of the RTI Act was closed on CPGRAMS by CIC JS Shri Rahul Rastogi and on 13/07/23 you rejected my CPGRAMS appeal (No. DOPAT/E/A/23/0001211) by agreeing with him. Please also recall that the RTI transfer by DOPT to CIC of my request dated 13/07/23 for, inter-alia, copies of DOPT orders by which Shri Rastogi and yourself were posted to CIC, relieved from your previous postings, and appointed GRO / sub-nodal appellate authority for CPGRAMS was rejected u/s 8(1)(j) and on 12/09/23 you rejected my RTI appeal (No. CICOM/A/E/23/00317) by agreeing with CPIO. FACTS: I applied again to DOPT for copies of the aforesaid orders at point-1 of my request dated 29/09/23. This time DOPT both kept and transferred to CIC, as No. CICOM/R/T/23/00090 dated 03/10/23. On 01/11/23 CPIO Consultant (Admin) again invoked the personal information exemption u/s 8(1)(j) to reject point-1. (For point-2 he said an office order is attached but neglected to either upload it or enclose it with the letter sent by post and I have made fresh request for it). Meanwhile, DOPT provided access to orders sought at point-1a & b: viz., No. 9/27/2017-EO (MM-I) dated 13.03.2018 and No. 33/05/2022-EO(SM-I) dated 13.05.2022 concerning yourself and No. 6/14/2013-EO (MM-II) dated 12.02.2014 and No. 6/7/2019-EO (MM-I) dated 26.07.2019 concerning Shri Rastogi. This appeal is for the copies sought in point-1c - i.e., the DOPT order appointing Shri Rahul Rastogi GRO and order of DOPT nodal authority appointing yourself as sub-nodal appellate authority for CPGRAMS - that have not been forthcoming from DOPT, likely because the request was not forwarded to DOPT CPIO concerned with CPGRAMS. GROUNDS: A. The copies sought in point-1c are of orders existing / available / held in CIC because they are required in terms of para-2C of the DARPG OM dated 27/07/22 on subject of CPGRAMS. Copy of the said OM was attached with my prior appeal and is again attached for your reference. B. The copies sought in point-1c have been wrongly denied by CPIO as part of the sweeping denial of point-1, apparently in pursuance of your previous decision that the personal information exemption u/s 8(1)(j) applies to orders for appointments to public posts and positions. For your information, the orders for point-1a & b that you consider exempt u/s 8(1)(j) are available on DOPT website. C. The copies sought in point-1c are sought by natural right to satisfy myself that Shri Rastogi and yourself were duly authorised to close my case on CPGRAMS. REQUEST: Please provide the copies sought in point-1c of my request transferred as No. CICOM/R/T/23/00090 - preferably with your decision, as per the instructions for FAAs in Part-V of the DOPT guide u/s 26 of RTI Act (i.e., the guide from which para-10 in Part-I is adapted for your contrary standard-text rejection decisions)." 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. 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
889 CICOM/A/E/23/00387 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-11-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/00720 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "Provided incomplete Information and misleading information. Kindly provide complete 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 (ADMIN) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide information as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 13.12.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
890 CICOM/A/E/23/00388 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 02-11-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/00730 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "Provided incomplete, Misleading of False information. Kindly provide correct and complete information." 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