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
921 CICOM/A/P/23/00155 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-10-2023 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/23/00439 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 18.09.2023 के द्वारा सूचना भेजी जा चुकी है। केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी द्वारा दी गई सूचना, दिनांक 18.09.2023 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
922 CICOM/A/E/23/00364 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-10-2023 Ref RTI No.-CICOM/R/T/23/00079 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "Permission has been granted to file this First Appeal under RTI Act, 2005. This Appellant has asked for current action status of urgent NOTICE OF MOTION for initiating Contempt Proceedings against Anil Kumar Lahoti, Chairman Railway Board (Ministry of Railways) for non – complying with mandatory Section 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005. Learned CPIO utterly failed to provide current action status of urgent NOTICE OF MOTION dated 01.09.2023. Therefore, this Appellate Authority should give current action status of urgent NOTICE OF MOTION by deciding this First Appeal. Further this Public Authority did not take any action against Anil Kumar Lahoti, Chairman Railway Board (Ministry of Railways) and this Public Authority did not issued any show cause notice to the Chairman Railway Board for not comply with mandatory Section 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005 as per direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide Para 27 of Judgment dated 17.08.2023 in W.P.C. No. 990 of 2021 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, this First Appellate Authority to provide current and complete information under Section 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005. " 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 (Legal Cell) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide information as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 21.11.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
923 CICOM/A/E/23/00365 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-10-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/23/00080 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "Permission has been granted to file this First Appeal under RTI Act, 2005. This Appellant has asked for current action status of urgent NOTICE OF MOTION for initiating Contempt Proceedings against Anil Kumar Lahoti, Chairman Railway Board (Ministry of Railways) for non – complying with mandatory Section 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005. Learned CPIO utterly failed to provide current action status of urgent NOTICE OF MOTION dated 01.09.2023. Therefore, this Appellate Authority should give current action status of urgent NOTICE OF MOTION by deciding this First Appeal. Further this Public Authority did not take any action against Anil Kumar Lahoti, Chairman Railway Board (Ministry of Railways) and this Public Authority did not issued any show cause notice to the Chairman Railway Board for not comply with mandatory Section 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005 as per direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India vide Para 27 of Judgment dated 17.08.2023 in W.P.C. No. 990 of 2021 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, this First Appellate Authority to provide current and complete information under Section 4(1)(c) and 4(1)(d) of RTI Act, 2005." 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 (Legal Cell) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide information as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 21.11.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
924 CICOM/A/E/23/00363 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 10-10-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/T/23/00071 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "The COPIES duly requested of records related to the role of CIC in section 14 of the RTI Act – including related to CIC’s closing of my petition dated 07.06.2023 for Presidential reference for inquiry u/s 14(1) of the Act – may please be provided to me, preferably with the decision u/s 19(6) (as per the instructions for FAAs in DOPT Guide u/s 26 of the RTI Act)." 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
925 CICOM/A/E/23/00362 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 10-10-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/01021 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that " GROUNDS: A. CPIO has wrongly cited section 2(f) for citations. Information of landmark court judgements is published on CIC website. The publications do not have the precedents related to RTI Online transfers. CPIO has not said whether or not he took assistance u/s 5(4) from the Legal Consultant. B. CPIO has wrongly cited section 2(f) for name of Legal Consultant. Legal Consultant is employed by CIC and information of her name is covered u/s 4(1)(b)(ix) & (x) of the Act. REQUEST: CPIO may please be asked to inform name of Legal Consultant and to take assistance u/s 5(4) to provide the citations for precedents related to RTI Online transfers. I also urge adding the said precedents to the CIC website publications of court judgements." DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. Online transfer of RTI happens at the level of CPIO of concerned Public Authority. Landmark Supreme Court/High Court Judgements related to RTI are available on CIC website and may be referred. The name of the Legal Consultant is Sharu Priya. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
926 CICOM/A/E/23/00360 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-10-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00921 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "The CPIO informed that i would have received diary number and as such i could had get the status from online using the same. Except the diary number 625615 i never got any other diary number. Hence the present appeal is filed. " DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. The screenshot of the concerned diary no. is attached. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. download pdf
927 CICOM/A/E/23/00361 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-10-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/01105 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "As per Section - 6 of the RTI Act, 2005 read with Rule 3 of the RTI rules, 2012 this is to hereby ask the Mr. R.K. Rao, Deputy Registrar, Central Information Commission or any other concerned person in regards in pursuance of the CIC order attached with the present RTI Application dated 18.08.2023: - Q.1) As per Section - 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 what is the status of the fine which has been imposed on Mr. Devender Khichni, Administrative officer in the aforesaid RTI Application for non pursuance of the RTI Application as per rules? Q.2) As per Section - 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 the fine levied will be provided to the Applicant or any other Government body? Q.3) As per Section - 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 kindly provide the status report of the present order. Q.4) As per Section - 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 kindly provide the reply if any has been provided by the concerned PIO in pursuance of the aforesaid order. Q.5) Kindly provide any other related information. In case query relates to some other public authority please transfer this RTI application there under Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005 under intimation to me. That as per the order of the Honourable Delhi High Court in Har Kishan v. President Secretariat and Anr. W.P. (C) 7976 of 2020 dated 29.01.202, the above mentioned Information sought is of Public Nature as the information sought is of utmost public importance." 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
928 CICOM/A/E/23/00359 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-10-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/01005 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 (M&R Section) is directed to reply the RTI application for point 1 and provide information as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 10.11.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
929 CICOM/A/P/23/00153 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 05-10-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00465 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that “…In view of the above, it is respectfully prayed that the respondent i.e. GE (U) Bathinda Mil Stn may kindly be directed to furnish the required information as soon as possible to the appellant/applicant by passing the appropriate order and he be punished and prosecuted for violating the provisions of Right to Information Act 2005.” 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 appellant in the grounds for first appeal has mentioned about Second Appeal order and the appellant seeks information related to that second appeal order from other public authority which is beyond the purview 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
930 CICOM/A/P/23/00154 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 05-10-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00452 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. 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. In the instant case, the appellant has filed a second appeal in the RTI application. You are advised to visit CIC website to file second appeal against the concerned public authority.https://dsscic.nic.in/online-appeal-application/onlineappealapplication 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