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
901 CICOM/A/E/23/00380 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 26-10-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01175 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "a slip on the Letter dated26.10.2023 is pasted on address and no copy of submission is attached. No reply as been given by AC MCD and SDM Najafgarh in these appeals but no action has been taken against them. PIO is supporting the corrupt officers by not taking any action on non compliance complaints filed the appellant." 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
902 CICOM/A/E/23/00379 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-10-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/T/23/00075 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "Subject: Request for Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 Dear Sir/Madam, I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to request information under the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. I am seeking data on the number of RTI applications filed in the Government of India across different ministries and departments for the past five 2018 to 2023. Specifically, I kindly request the following information: 1. The total number of RTI applications filed in each ministry and department of the Government of India for the years 2018-2023 (Please provide data for each of the last five years). 2. How much rti application was submitted for 1st appeal? 3. The number of applications that were accepted, rejected, or closed during each of the last five years, along with reasons for rejections and closure, if applicable. 4. The number of applications that were transferred to other ministries or departments for further action, along with the details of the transfer. 5. The number of instances where information was provided beyond the stipulated time frame and the reasons for the delays. 6. Any data related to the number of appeals filed against RTI application decisions. 7. The current status of any pending RTI applications, if applicable. 8. Details of any instances where RTI applicants were denied access to information citing exemptions under the RTI Act and the specific sections under which such exemptions were claimed." 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
903 CICOM/A/E/23/00378 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 25-10-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/T/23/00068 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "Subject: Request for Information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 Dear Sir/Madam, I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to request information under the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. I am seeking data on the number of RTI applications filed in the Government of India across different ministries and departments for the past five 2018 to 2023. Specifically, I kindly request the following information: 1. The total number of RTI applications filed in each ministry and department of the Government of India for the years 2018-2023 (Please provide data for each of the last five years). 2. How much rti application was submitted for 1st appeal? 3. The number of applications that were accepted, rejected, or closed during each of the last five years, along with reasons for rejections and closure, if applicable. 4. The number of applications that were transferred to other ministries or departments for further action, along with the details of the transfer. 5. The number of instances where information was provided beyond the stipulated time frame and the reasons for the delays. 6. Any data related to the number of appeals filed against RTI application decisions. 7. The current status of any pending RTI applications, if applicable. 8. Details of any instances where RTI applicants were denied access to information citing exemptions under the RTI Act and the specific sections under which such exemptions were claimed." 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
904 CICOM/A/E/23/00377 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 24-10-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01022 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "FACTS: 8 of my cases arising from 2 requests for information on two different subjects were taken up for hearings on 25/08/23 and disposed of the same day by one combined Decision of 22 pages. The Decision has text missing in a number of places, mostly in extracts from pleadings and hence known. First sentence on Decision page-20 has unknown words / phrases missing that I need for clarity in prior pending cases. I made request dated 31/08/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/01022 for the words or phrases missing in first sentence on Decision page-20 to be provided from the notes or whatever records are part of the Decision writing process (stating in end-note why I need them). On 29/09/23 CPIO gave online Reply: Refer to your RTI application the information sought is not specific & it is clarification in nature for which is not covered under Sec 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. GROUNDS: A. Text missing in a sentence is normally typographical error. In absence of provision for review, I have sought information of the correct complete sentence. CPIO has wrongly said that the request is not specific. I have specified the wrongly typed sentence (first sentence on Decision page-20). B. CPIO has wrongly said that the request is in nature of clarification and not covered u/s 2(f). I have specifically sought information from notes or records, i.e., from material held by CIC. Information that I sought on 04/12/22 of current process and note on finalisation of Decisions approved in CIC meeting on 28/02/2017 is pending in 2nd Appeal (F. No. CIC/CICOM/A/2023/608294). So, I do not know what records are part of finalising a Decision, but it is patently unlikely that a 22-page Decision was finalised with no notes etc, even for stenographer or assistant who typed it. REQUEST: Please ask CPIO to please check with whoever typed the final Decision dated 25/08/23 on my 8 cases and provide the words and phrases missing in first sentence on Decision page-20." 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 decision given in the second appeal has already been uploaded on the Commission portal which may be referred. The decisions given cannot be reviewed as per the RTI Act, 2005. The appeal is disposed of accordingly NA
905 CICOM/A/E/23/00376 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 23-10-2023 Ref RTI No. - CICOM/R/E/23/01143 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "sir, at S No 1 & 2 i have asked for copy of guidelines which was denied. at S No 3 i have asked for complete record of action taken on dairy number but the same was not provided. in respect of dairy number mentioned at S No 3 i was informed about 4 dairy number which was transferred to other CPIO, but no record provide vide which transferred for my follow up. please ask CPIO to provide complete information/record/guidelines copy as asked for." 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-SP) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide information as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 30.11.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
906 CICOM/A/E/23/00375 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 21-10-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/01054 निर्णय 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/E/23/01054 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 सूचना के अधिकार अधिनियम की धारा 2 (च) के प्रावधानों के अनुसार एक जन सूचना अधिकारी केवल सम्बंधित लोक प्राधिकरण के रिकॉर्ड में एक सामग्री के रूप में उपलब्ध सूचना ही प्रदान कर सकता 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
907 CICOM/A/E/23/00374 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-10-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/01095/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "A. Relief sought: (i) Cognisance of the RTI case as complaint w.r.t item no. A(i) of RTI request under section 18 (1) (c) and 18(1) (e) of RTI Act duly initiating inquiry under section 18(2) and section 18(3) of RTI Act (ii) Transfer of RTI appeal to CVC w.r.t CVC Complaint 32697/2023 dated 20/10/2023 against HOB/CBI/Kolkata whose name and identity is not known w.r.t letter dated 26/08/2021 issued by him w.r.t email dated 06/08/2021 sent to HoB/CBI/Kolkata during posting of appellant in Eastern Railway B. Grounds for appeal: 1. Item no. A (i) of RTI request pertains to email dated 20/09/2023 sent to IC Ms Saroj Punhani (Page 10 of the supporting document). Any incoming email is having only 3 options - Email is deleted Action is taken on the email No action is taken on the email. With respect to RTI request dated 21/09/2023, time of 50 days has been taken to provide response instead of informing selection of one of the above three options 2. The address of appellant is mentioned in the online RTI application. However only name of applicant is mentioned in the online response of CPIO. 3. It seems that CPIO has not taken assistance from Sectt of IC Ms Saroj Punhani 4. Apropos earlier decision dated 10/01/2022 (11th attachment) of IC Ms Saroj Punhani, there was abnormal delay till November 2022 w.r.t compliance. 5. For the hearing held on 20/09/2023 w.r.t CBI case, no-prior email intimation was given. So appellant could not properly explain the matter to IC. However matter was pursued with the concerned authorities C. FACTS 1) On account of blatant violation of section 7(1) and 19(6) of RTI Act by Vigilance Directorate of Railway Board under Ministry of Railways during posting of Sh S P Beck Joint/Secretary (CIC) in Railways, matter was reported to CVC on 03/08/2014 . However CVC abruptly filed complaint 18464/2014 on 19/02/2015 apparently after registration of RTI appeal MORLY/A/2015/60176 dated 16/02/2015 2) Ministry of Railways disposed RTI appeal MORLY/A/2014/60924 dated 29/07/2014 in the Year 2021. In the appeal, lapses in 59 RTI cases dealt by Sh S P Beck Joint Secretary/CIC during posting in Railways were elaborated. 3) During posting of Sh S P Beck Joint Secy/CIC in Railways, Ministry of Railways did not dispose online the RTI request MORLY/R/2013/61390 dated 30/09/2013. Rather during pendency of this RTI request, Sh R S Virdi GM/N F Railway issued letter on 03/10/2013 making malicious and baseless allegations against appellant. In this regard, NHRC case 483/3/24/2014 was registered in August 2014 4) Ms Rashmi Chowdhary IRPS working as Secy/CIC has dealt the issues of appellant since 10/02/2014 in a criminal manner during her posting in Railway, Ministry of Social Justice, DOPT and now CIC 5) Grievance PRSEC/E/2023/0044458 dated 20/10/2023 is related to CVC Complaint 31835-2023 dated 13-10-2023 against FACAO-FB-Eastern Railway Sh K K Goyal " DECISION OF THE 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
908 CICOM/A/P/23/00161 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 20-10-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00459 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that CPIO provided incomplete and misleading information for Point No. 1 and 2 and omitted Point No. 3. 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
909 CICOM/A/E/23/00373 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 18-10-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/01094 निर्णय आर. टी. आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन किया गया| अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/E/23/01094 में सूचना मांगी थी जिसके प्रतिउत्तर कमीशन की वेबसाइट पर वार्षिक रिपोर्ट में उपलब्ध हैं | केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी (CPIO- Admin) को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि प्रश्न 1 के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को दिनांक 28.11.2023 तक पुनः स्पष्ट सूचना प्रेषित की जाये| NA
910 CICOM/A/E/23/00371 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 17-10-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/01147 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "At first, there is no attachment sent by the SPIO of CIC, as stated by SPIO in his response. Moreover, as has been communicated numerous times to SPIO the PNB bank did not provide a timely and satisfactorily response till date, and yet no action has been taken against the non compliance sent. What is the purpose of you all getting paid of, if you can not follow your own rule book and policies to fine the Bank. As stated PNB provided a fake and misleading response, and I as an applicant should be given an opportunity to be heard as per the provisions under RTI act, please advise why such opportunity is deprived from me, and no action has been taken against non compliance." DECISION OF THE 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 provide the attachment as stated by the CPIO in the RTI reply, as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 28.11.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA