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
961 CICOM/A/P/23/00138 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-09-2023 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/2023/00552 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
962 CICOM/A/P/23/00139 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-09-2023 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/2023/00407 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। चूँकि केंद्रीय सूचना आयोग में पुनः अवलोकन का कोई प्रावधान नहीं है अतः प्रथम अपीलीय अधिकारी के कार्यक्षेत्र से बहार 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
963 CICOM/A/P/23/00132 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-09-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00409 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, collate or interpret 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
964 CICOM/A/P/23/00137 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-09-2023 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/2023/00379 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
965 CICOM/A/P/23/00130 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-09-2023 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/2023/00400 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
966 CICOM/A/P/23/00131 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 11-09-2023 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/2023/00414 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 नहीं है। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि इस आदेश के प्राप्ति के दस दिन के भीतर दिनांक 06.10.2023 तक आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/23/00414 के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पुनः स्पष्ट सूचना प्रेषित की जाये। NA
967 CICOM/A/E/23/00344 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 10-09-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00898 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that (Appeal regarding point no.1 & 2) I made request no. CICOM/R/E/23/00898 dated 04/08/23 for information related to the figures reported in CIC Annual Report for 2021-22 on p.22 and p.124 for the number of applications and the amounts by way of application fees and additional charges received by CIC in the reporting year. CPIO (RTI Cell) gave point-wise decision dated 30/08/23. GROUNDS: A. Decision for point no.1 is inconsistent with RTI Online FAQ no.12. I have requested, for the total of 2011 applications reported received, the numbers of RTI Online requests, RTI Online BPL requests, off-line requests, and off-line BPL requests. CPIO has said: In RTI-MIS Portal, there is no data available up to December 2021 and physical data is also not being maintained. Answer to RTI Online FAQ no.12, however, says that RTI cases are retained for a period of 3 years. B. Decision for point no. 2 is unclear / not logical. I have requested, for the total amount of Rs. 5930 reported received as application fee, the numbers of - (a) RTI Online and (b) off-line - requests for which received. CPIO has said, for 2(a), that no payment was received against online RTI application and, for point 2(b): No separate data is being maintained separately. Logically, if no fee payment was received against online applications, then the whole reported amount of Rs. 5930 would have been received against off-line applications. But if no data is being maintained of off-line applications, then the figure of Rs. 5930 could not have been reported at all or as duly verified figure. REQUEST: Clear complete information may please be provided for my request point no. 1 & 2 in view of the foregoing. 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 revisit the RTI application for Point No. 1 & 2 and provide information as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 20.10.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
968 CICOM/A/E/23/00343 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 09-09-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00835 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "I do not agree with the answer to point number 2. It is true the copy of my say dated 4th June 2023 is a record generated by me. But I have no idea whether the document uploaded by me on the Commission link has been down loaded at your end and it is attached to my case file. And if it is not in my file, it is likely that the Commission did not consider it before giving its decision. If the Commission had given a decision taking into consideration what I said, it is possible that the decision would have been different. In order to satisfy myself in this regard, I need photocopies of the document I have asked for, which are available in the office of the Commission. It is said that not only justice should be done, but justice should be seen to have been done. Hence, I request that CPIO may please be directed to provide the photocopies of the documents requested by me." DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY: The First Appeal, RTI application and reply given by CPIO of CIC have been perused. 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
969 CICOM/A/E/23/00342 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 08-09-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00876/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "Sir, 1. Gazetted Officers appointed by Govt. of India are to address the complaints received at their end be it of any nature. In case of inappropriate complaints, it is mandatory to suggest the appropriate authority to approach. 2. This laidback approach is to be checked and make them to be more attentive and cautious while dealing with such complaints. When government officers at the helm are unable to understand the Honourable Prime Ministers call to be industrious and abstain from sinecure then who else will follow this? The secular principle enshrined in the Constitution requires the States, the Governments, Public Agencies and Public Servants to be secular, impartial and honest in the discharge of their public functions and duties. 3. Given the foregoing, it is a humble request to provide the complete information (Certified) at the earliest free of cost and provide reasons for such a ludicrous reply at the earliest." 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 (Admin Section) is directed to revisit the RTI application and provide information as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 17.10.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
970 CICOM/A/E/23/00340 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-09-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00893/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that FACTS: CIC office order dated 28.05.2018 F. No. Misc/AS/PS/2014-CIC/Admn (Pt) states: The Registrar shall be responsible to follow up the orders of the Information Commission under Section 25(5) of RTI Act, 2005 with the concerned Public Authorities. CIC Order dated 17.01.2018 in F. No. CIC/POSTS/A/2016/299355 contains recommendation u/s 25(5). In request dated 04/08/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00893 I attached relevant pages of both and sought: (1) details of the follow-up, in terms of the order 28.05.2018, on the recommendation in Order dated 17.01.2018, (2) Case file numbers of other Orders of the Commission containing recommendations u/s 25(5) that were followed-up in terms of the order dated 28.05.2018, and (3) in case the order dated 28.05.2018 has been superseded or withdrawn, copy of the superseding / withdrawing order. On 01/09/23 Admin Section CPIO disposed of my request and CR-1 CPIO disposed of its additional registration as No. CICOM/R/E/23/00893/1. For point no.1 & 2 Admin Section CPIO said that the information will be provided by the concerned Registry, but CR-1 CPIO said (after taking assistance u/s 5(4)) that recommendations u/s 25(5) are not to be followed up by the concerned registry. CR-1 CPIO further said for point-1 that there has been no follow up and for point-2: No such record is maintained in Central Registry. For point no.3, Admin Section CPIO said: No such information is available. CR-1 CPIO said: No such information is available in Central Registry. GROUNDS: A) Post of Registrar is filled by exercise of the power u/s 12(4). Order dated 28.05.2018 of powers and duties of Registrar was issued in exercise of the power u/s 12(4). It has to be either in force or duly superseded / withdrawn. Responses of both CPIOs for point-1 & 2 convey that it is not in force. That both CPIOs have informed for point-3 that the superseding / withdrawing order is not available (with them) is likely because section 12(4) pertains to Chief IC, assisted by ICs and even record of CIC meetings is not available with CIC CPIOs. B) Section 2(f) defines information to mean material held by or under the control of the PA. It does not refer to CPIO. Whether or not a CIC order u/s 12(4) is in force or superseded / withdrawn is beyond doubt information exclusively held by and under control of CIC, regardless of whether or not it is available with CIC CPIOs. C) Information of powers and duties of Registrar is to be published and regularly updated u/s 4(1)(b)(ii). REQUEST: Please provide, with your decision, the copy requested in point-3 of the order superseding / withdrawing the order dated 28.05.2018 F. No. Misc/AS/PS/2014-CIC/Admn (Pt) - or, if the order is still in force, please confirm at as disclosure u/s 4(1)(b)(ii) and ask both CPIOs to revisit their responses to point-1 & 2. NB: I am filing the same appeal against disposal of both RTI Online request registration numbers. 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