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
971 CICOM/A/E/23/00337 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-09-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00941 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that CPIO denial to provide requisite information is baseless. Therefore, it is requested to FAA to direct concerned CPIO to provide information 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 13.10.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
972 CICOM/A/E/23/00338 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-09-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00906/1 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that The PIO has not provided the information for point number 12 , 20 & 21. Hence the FAA is requested to provide the information. 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 for Point No. 12, 20 & 21 and provide information as per available records, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 by 13.10.2023, free of cost. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
973 CICOM/A/E/23/00339 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 06-09-2023 Ref RTI No.-CICOM/R/E/23/00893 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25(5) that were followed-up in terms of the order dated 28.05.2018, and (3) in case the order dated 28.05.2018 has been superseded or withdrawn, copy of the superseding / withdrawing order.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
974 CICOM/A/P/23/00129 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 05-09-2023 आर.टी.आई. आवेदन, प्रदान की गई सूचना एवं प्रथम अपील का अवलोकन करने पर पाया गया कि अपीलकर्ता के आर.टी.आई. आवेदन CICOM/R/P/2023/00417 के 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 अपीलकर्ता ने अपनी आर.टी.आई में फाइल नं CIC/AD/C/2013/001825 – SA की पूर्ण अभिलेख/संचिका की अभिप्रमाणित प्रति मांगी है जबकि केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी ने फाइल नं CIC/AD/A/2023/001825 – VS की प्रति दी है। अतः केंद्रीय जन सूचना अधिकारी को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि इस आदेश के प्राप्ति के दस दिन के भीतर दिनांक 25.09.2023 तक आर.टी.आई. आवेदन सं. CICOM/R/P/23/00417 के तहत मांगी गई सूचना का अवलोकन कर अपीलकर्ता को पुनः स्पष्ट सूचना प्रेषित की जाये। NA
975 CICOM/A/E/23/00336 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 05-09-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00905 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that FACTS: In request dated 05/08/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00905 I sought, w.r.t CIC Annual Report 2021-22 para-3.5.1, copies / information of (1) instructions for converting a case filed to e-book for IC, (2) norms laid down for reaching the e-book to IC, and (3) complete details of how hearing notice is generated by the software (in any form such as logic flow / user guide or step-by-step screenshots that discloses why I have been receiving notices in varying forms). My request has been disposed of on 04/09/23 by informing that the information is not available in M&R Section. GROUNDS: A) All 3 points of my request are covered by specific provisions u/s 4(1) of RTI Act (and, hence, by its prior general definition u/s 2(f)) because: (a) information to be published u/s 4(1)(b) includes u/c (v) instructions, u/c (iv) norms, and u/c (iii) decision-making process details, and (b) decisions for which information by way of reasons is to be provided to me u/s 4(1)(d) include ALL decisions related to the handling of my case by others till it reaches for adjudication by the Commission. B) Point no.1 & 2. A case that I file in CIC is held by CIC in fiduciary capacity. The e-book form in which it reaches an IC is held otherwise: at hearings I have seen it being perused on separate monitor by strangers who are neither ICs nor CIC officers. Instructions and norms accompanying the decision to convert my case into an e-book accessible to strangers (and not to me and my respondents) are liable to be fully disclosed to me u/s 4(1)(b) & (d) and cannot be denied to me by evasion in RTI process. C) Point no. 3. CIC has reported in its AR 2021-22 that its software generates both physical notice and SMS/e-mail alert when hearing is scheduled. In 2022-23, however, I received (for identically filed cases) notices in varying formats mostly without any alert. Complete step-by-step details of the process leading to CIC decisions to issue varying notices to me are liable to be disclosed to me u/s 4(1)(b) & (d) and cannot be denied to me by evasion in RTI process. D) CIC hearings, with e-book / e-court systems and variable notices, are held for Chapter V function of CIC/ICs. Efficient performance of their functions under this Act is the purpose, specified u/s 13(6), for which CIC has officers. Non-transparency about the administrate arrangements for Chapter V functions raises questions in terms of section 13(6) of the RTI Act. REQUEST: Please provide, with your decision u/s 19(6), the information that CIC has neglected to disclose to me u/s 4(1) and make accessible to its CPIO to provide to me u/s 7(1) on my request dated 05/08/23. NB: If you are inclined to reject my request, please provide signed speaking order on each of its grounds. 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
976 CICOM/A/E/23/00334 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 03-09-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/E/23/00762 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that "Facts: 05/July/2023 1. Not satisfied by the decision made by the Information Commissioner Ms Saroj Punhani CIC in my case (CIC/DGITS/A/2022/632244) on 05/July/2023, I was considering to file for a judicial review in the Delhi High Court or in the Supreme Court, therefore on the same day, I lodged an RTI request through RTI online portal seeking the certified copy all the documents relating to that case including the record of hearing. This is important for me to ensure that the correct and complete record of this case to be lodged in court for the judicial review. Arguments 3. I have read the judgment of the Madras High Court and could not find the quote which the CPIO purportedly relied in refusing the information sought by me. The CPIO has not referred any paragraph number of that judgment. In my submission, the Madras High Court has not held that the certified copies of the case file and the record of hearing from the CIC should not be released to the RTI applicant in order to cause impediment in the process where an RTI applicant wishes to file a writ petition against the decision of the CIC. 4. In any case, the decision of the Madras High Court does not apply in Delhi as it’s territorial jurisdiction does not extend to Delhi and is not binding on the CPIO of the CIC where he is exercising his jurisdiction out of the territorial jurisdiction of the Madras High Court in relation to RTI applications relevantly from Delhi. It is noteworthy that B. Bharathi was not represented by an advocate and might not have argued his/her case the way in which a professional advocate would have presented and argued his/her case in that court. 5. Furthermore, my case is very different from the case of B.Bharathi as in that case according to the judgement B. Bharathi made over 47 RTI applications and in my case I have just made a single RTI application and that too for the purpose of judicial review. So, there is no resemblance of my case with the case of B. Bharathi. 6. About the record of hearing the CPIO stated that “No such records are maintained by CIC”. It could mean: (a). that the CIC does not create that record; or (b). that although the CIC creates this sort of record but does not maintain it. 7. The CPIO should have distinguished that, which he did not." 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-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 03.10.2023. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. NA
977 CICOM/A/P/23/00126 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-09-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00339/1 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
978 CICOM/A/E/23/00333 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-09-2023 Ref RTI No.-CICOM/R/E/23/00899 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal stating that FACTS: I had difficulty with audio quality in Intra-VC hearings on 01/05/23. I made CPGRAMS request to MEITY to upgrade CIC equipment. It was transferred to DOPT. Case was closed on 07/06/23 by CIC JS (The grievance was taken up with the concerned section and it has been reported that CIC Intra-VC facility has been working smoothly and without any issue. If any discrepancy happens then it could be a random issue.) CPGRAMS appeal was rejected on 09/06/23 (Agreed with the comments of the PG Officer. Hence, rejected.) I was not aware that you were CPGRAMS AA. Assuming it was DOPT AA, I made CPGRAMS request to DOPT Secretary for speaking order. That was closed on 26/07/23 by CIC JS (Your grievance has already been examined by the concerned section and you have been given reply accordingly. It is once again requested to intimate the specific grievance if any, so that it may be examined.) In request dated 04/08/23 No. CICOM/R/E/23/00899, I attached CPGRAMS printouts and sought: (1) Complete details of the CONCERNED SECTION that CIC JS has mentioned in his closure remarks dated 07/06/23 and 26/07/23, (2) Copy of the previous request to me, apropos which CIC JS has ONCE AGAIN requested me in his closure remark dated 26/07/23, and (3) Either the technical information about the Intra-VC facility / system of CIC or any specimen of a SPECIFIC GRIEVANCE about its random issues that was NOT dismissed. On 01/09/23 my request was disposed of by providing, as Information, these words: (1) Closure remarks have been made as per report received from the concerned section, (2) Query not understood, (3) Information being obtained under section 5(4) of RTI Act, 2005 and will intimate as and when received. GROUNDS: Request u/s 6 is to be disposed of by decision u/s 7(1). Decision u/s 7(1) can reject for reason u/s 8 or 9. Otherwise it has to provide information. Information is defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i). What CPIO has provided is NOT information as defined u/s 2(f) r/ 2(i). This RTI request is for information to know why my difficulty was belittled in my CPGRAMS case. I would not have had to make it if you had not rejected my CPGRAMS appeal without speaking order / providing me reasons u/s 4(1)(d). Because you also do not give speaking orders on RTI appeals, DOPT OM dated 09.07.2007 on the subject is ATTACHED for your information. It has been reiterated separately in OM dated 17.02.2015 as well as in all Guides u/s 26. (The standard text that you use to reject appeals is based on para-10 in Part-I of the consolidated Guide. Guidelines for FAA are in Part-V.) The present case is apposite for the guideline in para 4(ii) of the attached OM. REQUEST: Please provide, with your decision, the information (as defined u/s 2(f) r/w 2(i) of the RTI Act) for each of the 3 points of my request dated 04/08/23. 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
979 CICOM/A/P/23/00125 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-09-2023 Ref RTI No.- CICOM/R/P/23/00378 GROUNDS FOR FIRST APPEAL: The Appellant submitted first appeal being dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO and also mentioned that the information given is not correct. 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
980 CICOM/A/P/23/00127 Ms. ROOP AVTAR KAUR 01-09-2023 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/2023/00439 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। आपके द्वारा मांगी गई सूचना, केंद्रीय सूचना आयोग से संबंधित 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