Decisions of First Appellate Authority(CIC) uploaded from 01 Oct 2014

S.No Name Registration No Text of Appeal Appeal Document Appeal Decision Document
1 R.K.Jain CICOM/A/2014/00001
Document uploaded
2 R.K.Jain CICOM/A/2014/00003
uploaded Document
3 R.K.Jain CICOM/A/2014/00004
Uploaded Document
4 R.K.Jain CICOM/A/2014/00006
Uploaded Document
5 Pawan Agarwal CICOM/A/2014/00008
Uploaded Document
6 R.K.Jain CICOM/A/2014/00009
Uploaded Document
7 Anil Agrawal CICOM/A/2014/00011
uploaded Document
8 Jag Dev Singh CICOM/A/2014/00012
uploaded Document
9 Gopal kansara CICOM/A/2014/00018
uploaded Document
10 Anil Dutt Sharma CICOM/A/2014/00019
uploaded Document
11 Ashok Kumar Prajapti CICOM/A/2014/00023
uploaded Document
12 J.P.Shah CICOM/A/2014/00024
uploaded Document
13 Bimal Shankar Vishwakarma CICOM/A/2014/00030
provide incomplete, misleading or false information
14 G R Gulati CICOM/A/2014/00031
other ground
15 P C Yadav CICOM/A/2014/00033
no response within the time limit
16 Rajendra Kumar Meghwal CICOM/A/2014/00034
no response within the time limit
17 Arun Kumar CICOM/A/2014/00036
provided incomplete, misleading or false information
18 Y Srinivasan CICOM/A/2014/00037
no response within the time limit
19 Gopal Kansara CICOM/A/2014/00038
no response within the time limit
20 Girish Mittal CICOM/A/2014/00039
no response within the time limit
21 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00044
provided incomplete, misleading or false information
22 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00045
no response within the time limit
23 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00046
no response within the time limit
24 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00047
no response within the time limit
25 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00048
no response within the time limit
26 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00050
provided incomplete, misleading or false information
27 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00051
no response
28 C J Karira CICOM/A/2014/00052
no response
29 C J Karira CICOM/A/2014/00053
no response
30 C J Karira CICOM/A/2014/00054
no response
31 Manish Aggarwal CICOM/A/2014/00055
no response
32 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00056
incomplete, misleading or false information
33 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00057
provided incomplete, misleading or false information
34 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00059
incomplete, misleading or false information
35 Praveen Sakhuja CICOM/A/2014/00060
no response
36 S A Ahmed CICOM/A/2014/00063
no response
37 Ganesh Prasad CICOM/A/2014/00064
no response
38 Lakhan Kumar CICOM/A/2014/00066
no response within the time limit
39 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00072
DEEMED REFUSAL
40 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00073
Deemed Refusal
41 Lakhan Kumar CICOM/A/2014/00076
no response
42 Dhruv Gupta CICOM/A/2014/00077
incomplete,misleading or false information provided
43 Kewal Krishan Sharma CICOM/A/2014/00078
no response
44 Dr.Kodur Venkatesh CICOM/A/2014/00082
no response within the time limit
45 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00085
incomplete,misleading or false information provided
46 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00087
incomplete,misleading or false information provided
47 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00088
incomplete,misleading or false information provided
48 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00089
incomplete,misleading or false information provided
49 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00091
incomplete,misleading or false information provided
50 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00092
incomplete,misleading or false information provided
51 S K Saxena CICOM/A/2014/00093
incomplete,misleading or false information provided
52 Ashish Kumar CICOM/A/2014/00097
no response
53 Shams Tabrez CICOM/A/2014/00100
incomplete information provided
54 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00104
no response
55 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00106
no response
56 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00108
incomplete information
57 HARPREET SINGH CICOM/A/2014/60021
To, The AK Dash FAA, CIC Subject:- First Appeal under RTI act,05 Dear FAA, please refer to my initial RTI application CICOM/R/2014/60145 Disposed off on 13/08/2014. Disastisfaction has been obtained with respect to point no. 1 and 2. The various reasons for dissatidafaction are Point no. 1:- PIO replied as - please refer to RTI Act and RTI Rules. If i had to refer to the whole act plus rules, then whats the benefit of making an online RTI application. I request you to provide the answer in perfect form and not just quote an act which has many chapters and sections Point no. 2:- PIO replied as - refer to RTI Rules, 2012. This point is merely a SUGGESTION & does not come under the purview of INFORMATION. So again, it is requested to sort out the perfect answer. I request you to provide me the above information as soon as possible. i also request you to provide the deatils of the Second appellate authority.
Not Available
Decision already sent through email to the appellant.
58 VIPIN KUMAR AGARWAL CICOM/A/2014/60024
Aggrieved with the information provided by the Deputy Registrar & CPIO (CR) Sri Baljit Singh vide File No.CIC/CPIO/CR/2014/222 dated 20/08/2014 with regard to the on line RTI application number CICOM/R/2014/60155/1 dated 20/07/2014 the appellant hereby prefers the first appeal under section 19(1) of the RTI Act 2005. 1.That the appellant requested the information for providing him the name of the Public Authorities of the six (6) diary numbers/diary dates mentioned in the said on line RTI application which are being displayed on the official website of the Central Information Commission cci(dot)gov(dot)in but the CPIO has provided the incomplete, false, misleading, irrelevant and imaginary information of only 5 (five) diary numbers/diary dates. 2.That the appellant requested the CPIO through his RTI application dated 20/07/2014 to inform him the name of the Public Authorities but the CPIO is informing the dates of my letters. Thus the information is misleading and irrelevant . 3.The dates of my letters as informed by the CPIO are false and imaginary since the appellant never written any letter on all the 5 (five) dates as mentioned by the CPIO in his reply letter dated 20/08/2014. 4.That the information as requested by the appellant vide point number 6 of his RTI application dated 20/07/2014 is not provided by the CPIO hence the information provided is incomplete. 5.That since the information provided by the CPIO with regard to the above mentioned RTI application of the appellant is INCOMPLETE, FALSE, IRRELEVANT, MISLEADING AND IMAGINARY in nature hence a complaint under section 18(1)(e) of the RTI Act 2005 may be registered against the CPIO in the jurisdiction of the honorable Central Information Commission, New Delhi. 6.That the CPIO also failed to dispose off the RTI application of dated 20/07/2014 of the appellant within the period of 30 days as per Section 7(1) of the RTI Act 2005. Prayer: 7.That the appellant prays that the he may be provided the complete, correct, true and relevant information as requested vide the aforesaid RTI application and a complaint should also be registered against the CPIO ( Baljit Singh) Deputy Registrar & CPIO (CR) of CIC for providing the incomplete, false, irrelevant and imaginary information to the appellant as mentioned above and suitable orders may be passed under section 20 of the RTI Act 2005 against the said CPIO.
Not Available
59 nitin shakya CICOM/A/2014/60027
To, The first appellate authority. CIC Sub-First appeal sir - kindly provide the information sought in the RTI . Nitin Shakya D-1/86 gali no 3 ,om vihar ,phase 5, uttam nagar
Not Available
Mr Nitin Shakya has sought information reg the judgements of the Commission classified into/ particular subjects such as dowry articles, income tax return of father in law disclosure regarding, verification of bills of estimates submitted during police enquiry, reg disclosure of Delhi Police in matter of dowry, on instruction given to sales tax office for verification of estimates and disclosure of sale, purchase of articles against those estimates or bills. The CPIO RTI Cell has responded that no such information that is decisions of various categories are maintained by the commission. The decisions are available in the web site of commission cic.gov.in. He can download the decision as required by him from the website. The information viz judgments of the CIC are available on the website cic.gov.in. However, the judgements are not classified in the manner and under the subjects as required by the appellant. The appellant, therefore, can examine the decisions on the website and download those decisions as required by him as intimated by the CPIO, RTI Cell. The judgements of the CIC are not catalogued subject wise, therefore, it would not be possible to prepare such catalogued information as per the requirement of the appellant. The CPIO cannot devote efforts to retrieve such information for the benefit of the appellant as it will disproportionately divert the resources available and would attract Section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005. The appeal is therefore rejected. The appellant, if he so desires, is free to file second appeal under section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, before the Central Information Commission, Room No. 326, 2nd Floor, C Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066 against this order within 90 days. A K DASH, AS & FAA 03.11.2014
60 Sameer Raj CICOM/A/2014/60031
Central Information Commission R.No.326, C-Wing, II Floor August Kranti Bhavan Bhikaji Cama Place New Delhi - 110 066 3rd September 2014 Sameer Raj Lovely Cottage Near Krishna Basant Enclave Sati Mandir Lane Ratu Road Ranchi-834001 Mo : 07209446909 Sub : Seeking Information Under RTI Act-2005. While exercising my right under the RTI Act -2005, I would like to seek the following information from your department as mentioned herein under: 1)How many prisoners are being held captive in Tihar Jail beyond the period of 90 days and against those no charge sheet has been filed by the police as on 01/09/2014. 2)How many prisoners who are being held captive and against those no charge has been filed by the police are in prison for more than 3 years as on 01/09/2014. I state that the information sought does not fall within the restriction contained in section 7 of the Act and to the best of my knowledge it pertains to your office. If you feel that the above requested information does not pertain to your department then please follow the provision of section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005. Also as per the provision of the RTI Act, 2005 Your truly Sameer Raj
Not Available
The information which has been sought by the appellant is not pertaining to the CIC. The CPIO, RTI Cell has informed that the RTI application is not addressed to CIC, also such information as sought by him is not available with CIC. He may approach the concerned public authority to get the information. Since the information is not maintained in the CIC. the appellant is rightly advised to approach the concerned public authority by the CPIO. The appeal is therefore rejected. The appellant, if he so desires, is free to file second appeal under section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, before the Central Information Commission, Room No. 326, 2nd Floor, C Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066 against this order within 90 days. A K DASH, AS & FAA 03.11.2014
61 Manmohan Singh CICOM/A/2014/60032
I would like to be present during this hearing of First Appeal under the RTI Act 2005. Kindly therefore, inform me in advance about the date, time and venue of the First Hearing scheduled by you, so as to enable me to attend the same. Please read the attached special note . After reading the note It is obligatory and mandatory for you to conduct a proper hearing for this First Appeal, which should be preceded by a proper Notice of Hearing to me.
Appellant personally heard on 05.11.14. Decision of FAA sent by speed post at the above mentioned address.
62 RAHUL CICOM/A/2014/60033
Brief summary- An enquiry is being conducted on my friend (in Govt Service) by a senior Govt official. The matter is non-criminal. No FIR and no intervention by Civil court. The senior Govt Official asks police to get personal mobile Call data Record (CDR) of my friend for a backdated time period. The police gets it and gives it to the Govt Official. Now, after few days, while the enquiry is pending, this personal mobile Call data Record (CDR) is being disclosed to an RTI applicant by SPIO. This RTI applicant is a person who was complainant to start this enquiry. PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFO- 1.Can a telecom agency (BSNL) provide personal mobile Call data Record (CDR) of a subscriber to POLICE if there is no criminal case against that subscriber and also there is no legal Order of Court to police to get those CDR Yes / No. 2.Can this personal mobile Call data Record (CDR) of a subscriber be given to police by telecom agency (BSNL) without taking consent of subscriber when- (a)There is NO criminal case against subscriber. (b)When there is criminal case against subscriber. (c)When there is no order of court. (d)When police is not a part of investigation but enquiry officer takes only help of police to get these call details. 3.Can a telecom agency (BSNL) provide personal mobile Call data Record (CDR) of subscriber to police when - police is not the part of investigation but some other Govt body (non criminal case) is conducting some enquiry and that Govt body takes help of police to obtain personal mobile Call data Record (CDR) of subscriber. 4.As per para 3, the personal mobile Call data Record (CDR) obtained in such manner has now travelled from BSNL to police to a Govt official. Now this Govt official is the one who is conducting a non-criminal investigation. Now, can these call details be disclosed under RTI act 2005 by that enquiry officer or any SPIO (other than BSNL PIO), while the enquiry is till pending 5.Is it mandatory on part of that SPIO (other than BSNL PIO) to get permission of BSNL before disclosing these call details to an RTI applicant. 6.Is it mandatory to follow section 11 of RTI 2005 in such case before disclosing personal call details to some RTI applicant 7.Who is the competent authority to pass an order so that personal mobile call details of a person facing enquiry can be obtained by enquiry officer To reiterate- the Govt officer facing this preliminary enquiry has NOT been charge sheeted, No FIR has been lodged, No court order for obtaining call details and it is not a criminal case. It is just a preliminary enquiry being conducted).
Not Available
The appellant has sought the opinion of the CPIO in the CIC regarding some specific points relating to some hypothetical case not concerning the CIC as a Public Authority. Clarifications in such hypothetical situation cannot be given by the CPIO under the garb of RTI query. The CPIO has rightly informed him that the CIC has no such information as sought by him. The appeal is, therefore, rejected. The appellant, if he so desires, is free to file second appeal under section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005, before the Central Information Commission, Room No.326, 2nd Floor, C Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066 against this order within 90 days. A K DASH, AS & FAA 05.11.2014
63 arpit gupta CICOM/A/2014/60035
No Reply had been provided by the Concerned CPIO on the following Question raised by me the RTI application: Q3:Is IBPS,MUMBAI a public authority.If it is then what action had been taken by the CIC to put it under the ambit of the RTI act 2005 Q4: As per the Order of the CIC New delhi with File Nos. CIC/SM/A/2010/000873, CIC/SM/C/2009/000200, CIC/SM/C/2010/000655, 000903, 001190, 000897, 001192, 000921, CIC/SM/C/2011/000344, 000459, 000348, 000253, 000274, 000355, 001141,001123, 000566 dated 20 oct 2011 to IBPS, Mumbai to appoint one or more CPIOs and furnish the information under Section 7 of the RTI Act, 2005 but still no CPIOs names are avialable on its website.What action be taken by the CIC,New Delhi for non-compliance of its order. I request the appellate officer to relook into my questions and provide me the suitable reply and ask the CPIO for providing me the Reply in a time bound manner.
Not Available
The appellant was heard over phone on 12.11.14. Shri T.K. Mohapatra, CPIO, RTI Cell and DR to IC(MP) was also present. Decision with reasons 2. During the hearing, the CPIO Shri T.K. Mohapatra informed that a stay has been granted by honble Bombay High Court against the decision of the Commission to treat IBPS, Mumbai as a public authority. Direction was given to Shri T.K. Mohapatra, CPIO to send an appropriate response to the appellant within 10 working days from the date of receipt of this order. 3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 4. In case the appellant is aggrieved by the decision, he is free to file second appeal, if he so desires, before the CIC in Room No. 326, 2nd Floor, C Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066 against this order within 90 days. A.K. Dash, AS and FAA 12.11.14
64 BAIJAYANTI SAHU CICOM/A/2014/60041
No 3 & 4 question has not been replied by CPIO. The questions are reproduced for your information. 3.Whether necessary action to comply with provisions of RTI Rule 2012 as regard to filing of second appeal and complaint under RTI Act has been done in the site www.rti.india.gov.in 4.In how many instances till now the second appeal or complaint has ben filed in the www.rti.india.gov.in and after the signed hardcopy has been received the petition has been returned due non-compliance with requirements of RTI Rule 2012 by CIC.
Not Available
Appellant has appealed against the response given by Shri A.K. Gehlot, JS(MoRe) who has responded against items 1 and 2 of RTI application as follows 1. Do online filing of complaints and second appeals via www.rti.india.gov.in the online portal complies with provisions of RTI Act 2005 and rules made there under Yes 2. Who is the authority maintaining and updating the site www.rti.india.gov.in CIC is the Authority for maintaining and updating the site with the help of NIC Appellant has stated that RTI queries No. 3 and 4 have not been replied by the CPIO. The questions are reproduced below 3. Whether necessary action to comply with provisions of RTI Rule 2012 as regard to filing of second appeal and complaint under RTI Act has been done in the site www.rti.india.gov.in 4. In how many instances till now the second appeal or complaint has been filed in the www.rti.india.gov.in and after the signed hardcopy has been received the petition has been returned due to non-compliance with requirements of RTI Rule 2012 by CIC Decision with reasons 5. Item 3 pertains to the Registrar. Therefore it is sent to the Registrar Shri M.K. Sharma to reply directly to the appellant under intimation to the RTI Cell within 10 working days from the date of receipt of this order. 6. Item 4 pertains to the Central Registry. Direction is given to the CPIO cum DR, Shri Raghubir Singh to furnish appropriate response directly to the appellant under intimation to the RTI Cell within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. A K Dash AS and FAA
65 VIPIN KUMAR AGARWAL CICOM/A/2014/60044
The CPIO not provided the requested information but the CPIO has wrongly ,illegally and deliberately with malafide intention attached the reply letter reference number File No. CIC/CPIO/CR/2014/260 dated 22/09/2014 which is addressed to Shri Bishnu Kant Thakur, House No.17 b, Sector 43 A, Chandigarh 160022 and the Registration Number of this RTI application is CICOM/R/2014/60228 dt. 01/09/2014. The said attached reply of the CPIO is irrelevant, untrue, false and has no concern with requested information through the RTI application by the appellant. The information asked is not provided but the appellant is misguided deliberately by the CPIO by attaching the reply of some other RTI applicant purposely. Since the CPIO has no intention to provide the requested information hence the CPIO deliberately and illegally attached the reply of some other RTI applicant as mentioned above. Even the e mail id of the CPIO Sri Baljeet Singh is also wrong and incorrect because when the appellant sent the e-mail on the given e-mail address of the CPIO the same is returned undelivered to me. The appellant thus prays the first appellate authority to provide him the requested information vide his Online RTI application dated 01/09/2014 and name and e-mail id of the CPIO should be updated and modified in case of changes. The CPIO may be issued a show cause notice under advice to the appellant for wrongly and illegally attaching the reply of some other RTI applicant.
Not Available
The appellant is aggrieved with the response furnished by Shri Baljit Singh, DR in Central Registry and that the information has not been given correctly and false, incomplete and misleading reply has been furnished. The matter was heard over telephone when Shri Rakesh Kumar, SO & Incharge of Central Registry was present. Decision with reasons 2. The appellant is also aggrieved that the public authorities against which the applications/appeals/complaints have been filed in 06 cases have not been given correctly by the CPIO. Shri Baljit Singh who has furnished the reply has been relieved from the Commission. Direction is accordingly given to Shri Raghubir Singh, CPIO cum DR in Central Registry to give the point-wise correct information to the appellant within 07 working days from the date of receipt of this order. 3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. 4. In case the appellant is aggrieved by the decision, he is free to file second appeal, if he so desires, before the CIC in Room No. 326, 2nd Floor, C Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066 against this order within 90 days. A.K. Dash, AS and FAA 03.11.14
66 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00113
no information
67 Sunita Mehta CICOM/A/2014/00075
incomplete,misleading or false information provided
68 Girish Prasad Gupta CICOM/A/2014/00080
No response
69 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00086
incomplete,misleading or false information provided
70 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00090
incomplete,misleading or false information provided
71 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00112
incomplete information
72 Vinay Gupta CICOM/A/2014/00119
no response
73 Rajeev Sharma CICOM/A/2014/00094
other ground
74 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00121
no response
75 R K Mahajan CICOM/A/2014/00136
No response
76 Sanjay Sharma CICOM/A/2014/00138
no response
77 Prasanta Basu Ray CICOM/A/2014/00146
incomplete information
78 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00153
no response
79 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00154
no response
80 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00155
no response
81 Omprakash Sharma CICOM/A/2014/00157
no response
82 Manoj Kumar CICOM/A/2014/00160
incomplete reply
83 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00161
incomplete reply
84 Dr.Terence Nazareth CICOM/A/2014/00162
incomplete reply
85 Anita Singh CICOM/A/2014/00058
incomplete,misleading or false information
86 Sanjeev Kapoor CICOM/A/2014/00081
incomplete, misleading or false information
87 S Ramachandra Rao CICOM/A/2014/00099
incomplete,misleading or false information provided
88 Amit Kumar Shrivastava CICOM/A/2014/00116
No information
89 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00128
incomplete information
90 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00129
incomplete information
91 R L Goyal CICOM/A/2014/00130
no response
92 Sharad S. Phadke CICOM/A/2014/00022
Uploaded Document
93 Manmohan Singh CICOM/A/2014/60063
Please find attached note .
94 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00147
no response
95 Omprakash Sharma CICOM/A/2014/00149
incomplete information
96 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00150
incomplete information
97 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00151
incomplete information
98 Manmohan Singh CICOM/A/2014/60062
Please find attached document .
99 Dr. Nityananda Das CICOM/A/2014/60048
Date: 25.10.2014 The First Appellate Authority CIC, August Kranti Bhawan Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110066 Sir Subject: First Appeal Under RTI Act, 2005 I submitted online RTI application vide Registration No. CICOM/R/2014/60269 dated 23.09.2014. But till date I have not received any information from the CPIO. 2. In my RTI application I already mentioned that the CPIO of Ministry of Defence (MoD) has misused the CIC decision dated 25.6.2014 as a precedent or authority. Till date they have denied the information sought in our five RTI applications dated 18.07.2014, 16.08.2014, 19.08.2014, 23.08.2014 and 24.08.2014 with the remark that queries raised by you vide your RTI application under reference was found to be repetitive in nature with the previous applications. Repeated questions pertaining to a single subject has a cascading effect leading to enormous increase in RTI applications and consequent delays in disposals. Accordingly the same is being disposed off in accordance with the CIC decision No CIC/AD/A/20131001326-SA dated 25 Jun 2014. 3. The replies of CPIO, Ministry of Defence (MoD) are deliberate attempt to deny information he has adopted Pick and Choose policy, as explained below: I.CPIO, MoD did not comply Para 25(b) of CIC Order dt 25/6/2014. Date(s) of providing information in respect of my five RTI queries were not intimated to us. II.CIC Order dt 25/6/2014 (at Para 26) suggest to prepare consolidated information along with a background note based on facts, avoiding unfounded allegations may also be placed on website besides sending a copy to the applicant. But the CPIO, MoD disobeyed this decision of CIC. III.The Para 27 of CIC Order dated 25.6.14 also says that the entire information may be kept in the public domain, but this was followed by the CPIO, MoD. 4. We need the information from the CIC in respect of our RTI application dated 23.09.2014. This will help me to make first / second appeals against the decisions of CPIOs, Ministry of Defence. 5. In view of above I am requesting you to direct the CPIO, CIC for providing information in respect of my queries sought in the RTI application dated 23.09.2014. Yours faithfully (Nityananda Das) PAR Division IGFRI, Gwalior Road Jhansi (UP)-284003
Not Available
100 Indrasan Prasad CICOM/A/2014/00042
no response within the time limit
101 Neeraj Yadav CICOM/A/2015/00007
incomplete inforamtion
102 Abhishek Malaviya CICOM/A/2015/00008
incomplete information
103 Kishanlal Mittal CICOM/A/2015/00009
no Response
104 Jai Bhagwan Jatav CICOM/A/2015/00010
incomplete information
105 R P Azad CICOM/A/2015/00012
incomplete information
106 Dr.Terence Nazareth CICOM/A/2015/00013
No Response
107 Ramesh Kumar Seth CICOM/A/2015/00014
incomplete information
108 Nishat Kumar CICOM/A/2015/00015
incomplete information
109 R.K.Jain CICOM/A/2014/00026
uploaded Document
110 Mohd.Haider CICOM/A/2014/00041
provided incomplete, misleading or false information
111 N S Sharma CICOM/A/2014/00098
provided incomplete,misleading or false information
112 D Bharath Kumar CICOM/A/2014/00114
no information
113 Rednam Deepak CICOM/A/2014/00118
no response
114 Jagdish Raj CICOM/A/2014/00124
no response
115 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00125
incomplete information
116 Rednam Deepak CICOM/A/2014/00131
Denial of information by the CPIO
117 Rednam Deepak CICOM/A/2014/00132
Denial of information by the CPIO
118 P A Chitramani CICOM/A/2014/00133
No response
119 R L Goyal CICOM/A/2014/00134
no response
120 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00135
incomplete information
121 Hitesh Kumar M Gandhi CICOM/A/2014/00137
no response
122 Gurkirpal Singh CICOM/A/2014/00139
no response
123 Ramesh Singh CICOM/A/2014/00141
no response received
124 Damodar V Prabhu CICOM/A/2014/00143
incomplete information
125 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00152
incomplete information
126 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00156
no response
127 C S Ghai CICOM/A/2014/00158
No response
128 Vijay Kumar Garg CICOM/A/2014/00159
incomplete information
129 Dheeraj Pratap Sirohi CICOM/A/2014/00163
no response
130 R S Bhadouria CICOM/A/2014/00165
incomplete information
131 Parmendra CICOM/A/2014/00166
no response
132 Dharmatma Prasad Mishra CICOM/A/2014/00167
incomplete information
133 Brijesh Kumar Shukla CICOM/A/2014/00168
No response
134 Rajesh Kumar CICOM/A/2015/00006
incomplete information
135 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00018
NO Response
136 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00019
No Response
137 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00020
No Response
138 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00023
No Response
139 Pankaj Bhatnagar CICOM/A/2015/00024
NO Response
140 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00027
No Response
141 Yashodhar Omkarlal Jain CICOM/A/2015/00028
incomplete reply
142 Kamlesh Kashyap CICOM/A/2015/00046
Incomplete Information
143 Rajni Devi CICOM/A/2015/00047
No Response
144 Radheyshyam Gupt CICOM/A/2015/00048
No Response
145 V S Nathan CICOM/A/2015/00049
No Response
146 Mangala Kant CICOM/A/2015/00050
No Response
147 Vishewhwar Paswan CICOM/A/2015/00051
No Response
148 Ramdayan Singh CICOM/A/2015/00052
No Response
149 C J Karira CICOM/A/2015/00073
Incomplete Information
150 C J Karira CICOM/A/2015/00074
incomplete Information
151 N S Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00075
Incomplete Information
152 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00076
Incomplete Information
153 Rati Kant Suman CICOM/A/2015/00077
Incomplete Information
154 N S Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00078
Incomplete Information
155 Naresh Kumar CICOM/A/2015/00079
Incomplete Inforamtion
156 Radheyshyam CICOM/A/2015/00080
Incomplete Information
157 Nagsen Ragho Tayade CICOM/A/2015/00081
Incomplete Information
158 Govind Prasad CICOM/A/2015/00082
Incomplete Information
159 I K Saini CICOM/A/2015/00083
Incomplete Information
160 Anjani Kumari CICOM/A/2015/00084
Incomplete Information
161 N S Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00085
No Response
162 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00086
Incomplete Information
163 A M Attar CICOM/A/2015/00087
Incomplete Information
164 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00088
Incomplete Information
165 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00089
Incomplete Information
166 DR Ram Nandan Prasad CICOM/A/2015/00097
Incomplete Information
167 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00098
No Response
168 P M Ravindran CICOM/A/2015/00099
Incomplete Information
169 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00100
Incomplete Information
170 C J Karira CICOM/A/2015/00101
No Response
171 Vijay Kumar Garg CICOM/A/2015/00102
No Response
172 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00103
No Response
173 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00105
Incomplete Information
174 R K Jani CICOM/A/2015/00106
Incomplete Information
175 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00107
Incomplete Information
176 Girish Prasad Gupta CICOM/A/2015/00108
incomplete Information
177 Prakash Singh Badal CICOM/A/2015/60002
Kindly refer to the attached RTI (CIC/RM/A/2013/000425) from the website of RTI itself. It is addressed to Central Information Commission only (to which I had earlier addressed) and it has been responded in proper fashion (unlike the RTI filed by me). Kindly, forward it to the right authority.
The appellant, Sri Prakash Singh Badal has addressed the RTI application to Shri Satish Gupta, Under Secretary, NCTE on the online portal of CIC. The CPIO, RTI Cell, CIC has rightly requested him to send the RTI application to the concerned public authority to get the information. While registering the online first appeal the appellant has also enclosed a copy of Commission decision in F.No.CIC.RM. A.2013.000425 dated 08.10.2013 and has requested to forward the RTI application to the right public authority. The appellant was contacted over phone on 12.01.15 when the CPIO, RTI Cell was also present. It was explained to him that the RTI application addressed to another public authority is not expected to be forwarded by the CIC to the concerned public authority and he may file RTI application directly with the concerned public authority. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. A K DASH, AS and FAA 12.01.15
178 R.K.Jain CICOM/A/2014/00021
uploaded Document
179 Shrikesh Kumar CICOM/A/2014/00145
incomplete reply
180 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00021
No Response
181 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00022
No Response
182 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00025
Incomplete Information
183 Shiv Murti SIngh CICOM/A/2015/00059
Incomplete Information
184 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00109
No Response
185 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00110
No Response
186 Mukesh Jain CICOM/A/2015/00111
Incomplete Information
187 Rajesh Kumar CICOM/A/2015/00113
Incomplete Information
188 M N Mathur CICOM/A/2015/00114
No Response
189 K S Jain CICOM/A/2015/00115
No Response
190 Sugan Lal Singhal CICOM/A/2015/00116
Incomplete Information
191 R Kameshwara Babu CICOM/A/2015/00118
incomplete Information
192 Pawan K Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00119
Incomplete Information
193 Mahender Kumar CICOM/A/2015/00120
Incomplete Inforamtion
194 Capt C P Gupta CICOM/A/2015/00121
Incomplete Information
195 Gurbaksh Singh CICOM/A/2015/00122
Incomplete Information
196 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00142
no response
197 R K Mahajan CICOM/A/2015/00031
Incomplete Information
198 R K Mahajan CICOM/A/2015/00032
Incomplete information
199 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00041
Incomplete Information
200 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00043
incomplete information
201 Kishanlal Mittal CICOM/A/2015/00067
No Response
202 Devender Pal CICOM/A/2015/00125
Incomplete Information
203 Awadh Bihari Singh CICOM/A/2015/00126
Incomplete Information
204 Shrish Kumar Garg CICOM/A/2015/00127
Incomplete Information
205 Suresh A Kamat CICOM/A/2015/00128
incomplete Information
206 Radhey Shyam CICOM/A/2015/00129
Incomplete Information
207 Sadanand Paul CICOM/A/2015/00130
Incomplete Information
208 Usha Kapoor CICOM/A/2015/00131
No response
209 Sat Dev Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00132
Incomplete Information
210 Rajeev Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00133
Incomplete Information
211 Gaurav Bhardwaj CICOM/A/2014/00061
no response
No first appeal order is necessary as this was wrongly scanned as first appeal. This is a second appeal before the Commission.
212 Gaurav Bhardwaj CICOM/A/2014/00062
no response
No first appeal order is necessary as this was wrongly scanned as first appeal. This is a second appeal before the Commission.
213 Rakesh Kumar Rohil CICOM/A/2014/00071
incomplete, misleading or false information
214 D K Bhaumik CICOM/A/2014/00140
information has been sent vide letter no CICOM/R/2014/00648 dated 03.11.2014 to the applicant
215 Syed Thaha Bafakyhi CICOM/A/2015/00002
incomplete information
216 Mukesh Jain CICOM/A/2015/00004
No Response
217 Dipak Kumar CICOM/A/2015/00026
No Response
218 Harsh Vardhan CICOM/A/2015/00033
NO Respose
219 Abdul Salam CICOM/A/2015/00034
NO Response
220 Dr Dharmendra Patel CICOM/A/2015/00056
NO response
221 Devraj A S CICOM/A/2015/00057
Incomplete Information
222 Dr.P K Pandey CICOM/A/2015/00058
No Response
223 Harihar Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00062
No Response within time limit
224 Mukesh Jain CICOM/A/2015/00066
Incomplete Information
225 Rajeev Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00068
No Response
226 Dev Kumar Sanghi CICOM/A/2015/00071
Incomplete inforamtion
227 Omprakash Kashiram CICOM/A/2015/00134
Incomplete Information
228 Shiv Nath CICOM/A/2015/00135
Incomplete Information
229 Wilson Benjamin Castellino CICOM/A/2015/00136
Incomplete Information
230 R P Rohilla CICOM/A/2015/00138
Incomplete Information
231 Girish Prasad Gupta CICOM/A/2015/00139
Incomplete Information
232 Neera Rani CICOM/A/2015/00140
Incomplete Information
233 Narender Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00141
No Response
234 R Chandrasekaran CICOM/A/2015/00142
Incomplete Information
235 Vidhadhar Pandey CICOM/A/2015/00143
incomplete Information
236 Mangla Kant CICOM/A/2015/00152
Incomplete Information
237 Sanjay Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00038
NO Response
Not Available
238 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00039
Incomplete Information
239 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00040
Incomplete Information
240 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00045
incomplete information
241 Mukesh Shrivastava CICOM/A/2015/00053
No Response
242 P Kannan CICOM/A/2015/00054
NO Response
243 Abhishek Kumar Choubey CICOM/A/2015/00055
Incomplete Information
244 Nawab Baig CICOM/A/2015/00060
NO Response
245 Dev Kumar Sanghi CICOM/A/2015/00063
Incomplete Information
246 Satya Narayan Prasad CICOM/A/2015/00064
incomplete Information
247 Lakhan Kumar CICOM/A/2015/00070
No Response
248 Umakant Prasad CICOM/A/2015/00090
No Response
249 Bindeshwari Prasad Mehra CICOM/A/2015/00117
Incomplete Information
250 Usha Devi CICOM/A/2015/00123
Incomplete Information
251 Vijay Kumar Garg CICOM/A/2015/00124
No Response
252 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00147
Incomplete Information
253 Rajni CICOM/A/2015/00149
No Information
254 Damodar V Prabhu CICOM/A/2015/00150
No Response
255 T S Sivakumar CICOM/A/2015/00153
Incomplete Information
256 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00156
No Response
257 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00157
No Response
258 Y.S.V.PRASADA RAO CICOM/A/2015/60003
I request the intervention of Appellate Authority. I am entitled to the intervention of Appellate Authority as CPIO of DOPT is trying to intimidate the applicant BY QUOTING UNWANTED Disciplinary proceedings in his reply. It is against the RTI Act 2005. And it is insulting the RTI Act 2005. That is why I sought the intervention of CIC as it is the highest authority to give judgement in this matter.
Not Available
The appellant is aggrieved with the response furnished by the CPIO of DoPT and alleged non response by the FAA of DoPT. These authorities are not under the jurisdiction of FAA, CIC. As already informed by the CPIO, CIC, no such information which is being sought by the appellant in the RTI application is available with the CIC and the response given by the CPIO, CIC does not require any modification or interference in this regard. A K DASH, AS and FAA 04.02.15
259 Y.S.V.PRASADA RAO CICOM/A/2015/60004
I request the intervention of Appellate Authority. I am entitled to the intervention of Appellate Authority as CPIO of DOPT is trying to intimidate the applicant BY QUOTING UNWANTED Disciplinary proceedings in his reply. It is against the RTI Act 2005. And it is insulting the RTI Act 2005. That is why I sought the intervention of CIC as it is the highest authority to give judgment in this matter.
Not Available
The appellant is aggrieved with the response furnished by the CPIO of DoPT and alleged non response by the FAA of DoPT. These authorities are not under the jurisdiction of FAA, CIC. As already informed by the CPIO, CIC, no such information which is being sought by the appellant in the RTI application is available with the CIC and the response given by the CPIO, CIC does not require any modification or interference in this regard. A K DASH, AS and FAA 04.02.15
260 Akshay Kumar Malhotra CICOM/A/2015/60009
Pl see the 1st appeal as per attached file.
The status of the complaint case file No.CIC-YA-C-2014-000193 is available on the website of the Commission www.cic.gov.in the Status of Appeals and Complaints where the appellant can find out the status of his petition where complaint or appeal as the case may be for instance in the above case the status which has been mentioned in the website states pending for hearing-disposal in the registry of CIC-IC Mr. Yashovardhan Azad, which is enclosed in pdf file. In view of the above, the information is available for consumption of the members of public on the website and the appellant can find out information relating to pending appeals, complaints or relating to disposal of the letters etc from him for undertaking search by the name of the sender and diary number etc. The appellant is therefore advised that in future he should not prefer to RTI for obtaining such information which are available in the website of the Commission thereby benefiting himself to get the information instantly and secondly by saving the process of RTI. A K DASH, AS and FAA 04.02.15
261 B Parameshwar CICOM/A/2015/00035
incomplete information
262 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00042
Incomplete Information
263 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00044
incomplete information
264 N S Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00091
Incomplete Information
265 B Parameshwar CICOM/A/2015/00137
Incomplete Information
266 Awadesh Kumar Yadav CICOM/A/2015/00148
Incomplete Information
267 Pawan Kumar CICOM/A/2015/00160
Incomplete Information
268 Ganouri Das CICOM/A/2015/00161
Incomplete Information
269 Ram Dayal Singh CICOM/A/2015/00162
No Response
270 H P NANDA CICOM/A/2015/60001
To, The 1st Appellant Authority, CIC, New Delhi-110066 Subject: 2nd Appeal in r/o On-line RTI ID No. CICOM/R/2014/60358 dtd 14-11-2014 under RTI Act, 2005. Sir, 1)Information was sought on nine points regarding Honble CIC Decision dated 15-05-2014 in Appeal No. CIC/AD/A/2013/000431SA and PIO Society Letter diarized vide CIC Dy. No. 140395 dtd 30-05-2014. An attachment was appended with the RTI application to facilitate background of the matter. 2)The reply received vide No. CIC/CPIO/SA/2014/125 dtd 12-12-2014 is incomplete, unsatisfactory and much in short of the drive & spirit inculcated by the Act. Hence the Appeal. 3)As regards reply to points 1,2,3,5 and 6. The Respondent has neither invoked section 6 of the Act to transfer the five points to Registrar Co-op. Societies nor supplied the information at his end. 4)As regards reply to point 4. The Appellant is deprived of Name and Designation of hierarchy in CIC whosoever scrutinized profiles of the Appellant Sh. Davinder Kumar as well as S/Sh. P.N. Kapoor and R.C. Durga as Respondent authority on date of hearing of appeal No. CIC/AD/A/2013/000431SA . 5)As regards reply to point 7. The specific information is denied without any coherent explanation. Obviously, the PIO has preferred to skip scrutiny of profiles of The Administrator, S/Sh. R.C. Maherchandani, P.N. Kapoor and R.C. Durga who represented the Respondent Authority. 6)As regards reply to point 8. The Appellant sought intimation as regards the date of application of RTI Act, 2005 in instant case on the basis of which 1st & 2nd appeals are lodged by the RTI applicant namely Sh. Davinder Kumar. The information is denied. 7)As regards reply to point 9. The Appellant sought Numerical profile of total number of CIC decisions in year 2014 wherein observations of PIO, RCS as well as First Appellant Authority in O/o the RCS website, is camouflaged as in instant Decision. The reply is not provided. Attachment: Search results for File No. CIC/AD/A/2013/000431 as well as Senders details relating to sh. R. C. Maherchandani on CIC website as on 27-11-2014. H. P. Nanda
271 PARAS NATH SINGH CICOM/A/2015/60008
First Appeal is attached herewith.
272 Nitin Sharma CICOM/A/2014/60068
Sir, i have file each and every document online as well as i have attached online all evidence online on CIC and RTI Portal. then why i need to send Signed physical copy if i have submitted by using my own ID ( according to the information Act if i submit any document by using my E- mail id then it is acceptable by law.) please guide me again that i need to be submitted physical signed copy to cic via post if yes... please let me know region behind submitting physical copy.... and if CIC would be work only with physical copy then why this portal provide online attachment option of evidence.
Not Available
Since the submissions made in the appeal by the appellant was not very clear, attempt was made to speak him on the telephone provided in his appeal on 18.02.15 without any success. It appears that the appellant is aggrieved that there has been delay in registration of the second appeal in the Commission which was filed online vide No.SA-UG-14-20234hnxa on 16.09.14. As stated by the CPIO, RTI Cell that the contents of the RTI application were not very clear regarding the information sought therein. The response by CPIO dated 08.12.14 was given to the appellant accordingly advising him that if he has sent any signed copy of the second appeal or complaint to the Commission he should contact the Central Registry section of the CIC to get the details and the status of the registration. Contact number of the Central Registry was also furnished to him in the above reply of the CPIO. In the appeal, the appellant has now requested to be guided as to why a physical signed copy need to be submitted to the CIC via post and if CIC would register only with physical copy then why this portal provides for online attachment option of the enclosures. In this regard, the Registrar was consulted during the hearing on 18.02.15 who has opined that CIC online portal has to be understood along with the statutory rules under the RTI Act including RTI Rules 2012. He has also clarified as follows A second appeal or complaint cannot be filed through e.mail. However, it may be filed electronically on www.cic.gov.in online along with the requisite documents as per RTI Rules, 2012. Such second appeal or complaint shall be entertained and adjudicated only after receipt of the signed copy of the appeal or complaint. The CPIO, RTI Cell further inform during the hearing that as per the CICs website the above mentioned second appeal has been registered as File No.CIC-YA-A-2015-900172 and is pending for disposal in the registry of IC, Shri Yashovardhan Azad.
273 altaf CICOM/A/2014/60069
Dear sir, thanks for your quick action .i need to get know from which department ill get this information,as i am searching in public athority mensioned in RTI list of portals.kindly request you to give where and which department i should concer the same issue.
Not Available
The appellant sought information regarding the status of issue of election identity card of his family members on which the CPIO, RTI Cell has informed that the above information and subject matter are not concerned with the CIC nor the CIC is the holder of such type of information. The appellant was requested to approach the concerned public authority. In the appeal the appellant has requested to know from which department he would get this information. The response given by the CPIO, RTI Cell is appropriate as the information is neither held by the CIC nor the CIC as a public authority is concerned with the subject matter. Therefore, no further information can be provided in this regard by the CPIO.
274 R K Jain CICOM/A/2014/00084
incomplete,misleading or false information provided
275 M Manodhas CICOM/A/2015/00017
NO Response
276 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00069
Incomplete Information
277 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00093
Incomplete Information
278 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00094
Incomplete Information
279 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00095
Incomplete Information
280 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00096
Incomplete Information
281 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00154
Incomplete Information
282 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00155
Incomplete Information
283 Sanjiv Chaturvedi CICOM/A/2015/00159
Incomplete Information
284 Arun Kumar Agrawal CICOM/A/2015/00168
Incomplete Information
285 Lal Chand Yadav CICOM/A/2015/00171
Incomplete Information
286 Ram Dayan singh CICOM/A/2015/00174
Incomplete Information
287 Ram Dayan Singh CICOM/A/2015/00175
Incomplete Information
288 K Rahim CICOM/A/2015/00177
incomplete information
289 Jasoda Dadlani CICOM/A/2015/00180
incomplete information
290 D K Patnaik CICOM/A/2015/00182
incomplete information
291 T K Roy CICOM/A/2015/00146
Incomplete Information
292 Pawan Tiwari CICOM/A/2015/00158
Incomplete Information
293 I K Saini CICOM/A/2015/00176
incomplete information
294 Damodar V Pravhu CICOM/A/2015/00178
incomplete Information
295 S N P Bhawsinka CICOM/A/2015/00181
incomplete information
296 Vimal Shankar Vishwakarma CICOM/A/2014/00122
no response
297 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00003
incomplete information
298 Hukma Raj Badala CICOM/A/2015/00005
incomplete information
299 Rakesh Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00036
No Response
300 K K Gupta CICOM/A/2015/00037
NO Response
This is a second appeal and inadvertently scanned as first appeal. It has been sent to CR Section for further action.
301 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00092
Incomplete Information
302 Ganesh Prasad CICOM/A/2015/00144
No Response
303 C J Karira CICOM/A/2015/00145
Incomplete Information
304 Amit Kishore Jain CICOM/A/2015/00163
Incomplete Information
305 Alok Kumar CICOM/A/2015/00165
No Response
306 Sandeep Kumar CICOM/A/2015/00166
Incomplete Information
307 Nitin Maheshwari CICOM/A/2015/00169
Incomplete Information
308 Sunil Chandrakant Sonawane CICOM/A/2015/00170
Incomplete Information
309 Dr Kanhaiya Lal CICOM/A/2015/00172
Incomplete Information
310 Mukesh Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00173
Incomplete Information
311 Subhash Chandra Agrawal CICOM/A/2015/00179
incomplete information
312 A A Balakrishnan CICOM/A/2015/00184
Incomplete Information
313 S K Singh CICOM/A/2015/00185
Incomplete Information
314 Usha Devi CICOM/A/2015/00186
Incomplete Information
315 Kapil Dev Aggarwal CICOM/A/2015/00187
Incomplete Information
316 V Harikrishnan CICOM/A/2015/00188
incomplete Information
317 Jayant Nath Rai CICOM/A/2015/00190
Incomplete Information
318 S C Mittal CICOM/A/2015/00191
Incomplete Information
319 Narender Singh Rana CICOM/A/2015/00195
Incomplete Information
320 S N P Bhawsinka CICOM/A/2015/00196
Incomplete Information
321 Rajinder K Singla CICOM/A/2015/00197
Incomplete Information
322 Harpal Singh Rana CICOM/A/2015/00198
Incomplete Information
323 Dharmendra Gautam CICOM/A/2015/00199
Incomplete Information
324 Azizur Rahman CICOM/A/2015/00202
Incomplete Information
325 Sheesh Pal Garg CICOM/A/2015/00204
Incomplete Information
326 Madhu Agrawal CICOM/A/2015/00205
Incomplete Information
327 P C Williams CICOM/A/2015/00207
incomplete Information
328 Sat Dev Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00208
incomplete Information
329 Bimal Shankar Vishwakarma CICOM/A/2015/00209
incomplete Information
330 Rajeev Kumar Singh CICOM/A/2015/00210
incomplete information
331 J D Singh CICOM/A/2015/00211
incomplete Information
332 Jai Dhari Singh CICOM/A/2015/00212
Incomplete Information
333 MUKESH CICOM/A/2015/60005
Registration Number CICOM/R/2014/60374 Date of Receipt 20/11/2014 The People who do not have the knowledge of English language how can they put up there application in Hindi language in online RTI (Text for RTI Request application column).I wish to get the replay in Hindi language .
Not Available
CPIO has already responded that he can file the RTI application by uploading a scan copy of his RTI application in Hindi on the online portal. The response is satisfactory and no further information needs to be provided by the CPIO. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. A K DASH, AS and FAA 20.03.15
334 Prabhash Chandra Sharma CICOM/A/2015/60013
To, The Appellate Authority, Central Information Commission, New Delhi Date:- 27 January 2015 Subject:-Regarding reply ensuring the grappling further to seek information Sir, I filed one RTI application vide registration Number- CICOM/R/2015/60046 dated 22-1-15 which was replied in denial/unavailability on 27-1-15 but my petition was redirected nor was I informed to contact certain authority and department. Kindly look into the matter. Regards Sd/-Prabhash Chandra Sharma Journalist (Regional Daily Hindi News Paper) Secretary (Journalists Union of Bihar) Consultant (Online Multi-Complaint) Director (Political Coaching Institute) Activist (Bihar right to Information Forum) Activist (Bihar Human Rights Protection Foundation) Social Reformer R/o-Patrakar Sadan, Pahalwan Ghat, Patna-800001 Email:-vikaschandrabudha@yahoo.co.in AADHAAR No-3388 1143 0082
Not Available
The appellant has sought information regarding whether the promises of service or offers by means of printed agenda or recorded announcement by election contesting leaders or ministers be considered as service provider and voters or public as consumers. The CPIO returned the application with the remarks that no such information sought by you is available with CIC and CIC as a public authority is not concerned with the subject matter. The Commission is not concerned with the subject matter and as such the response of the CPIO was appropriate and no intervention by the FAA is required in this case. A K DASH, AS and FAA 20.03.15
335 sachin sethi CICOM/A/2015/60018
Sir, I asked for the recouse available to the citizens of india in case response to an RTI is not provided within 30 days. For this request, a straightforward reply that no information is available and refer RTI rules and ACT seems unreasobale. I request you to please provide the necessary recourse available in this case to the citizens. Thanks
Not Available
The appellant is aggrieved with the response of the CPIO that no information is available and refers RTI rules and ACT and he has requested to provide the necessary recourse available in this case to the citizens. In this regard CPIO, RTI Cell has already informed that no other information is available with this commission except that is available in RTI rules, 2012 and RTI Act, 2005. The appellant can also visit the RTI portal of DOP&T who is the nodal ministry on RTI Act. The appellant can accordingly refer to the RTI rules, 2012 and RTI Act, 2005 and can also visit the RTI portal of DOP&T which is the nodal ministry on RTI Act. CPIO of the CIC cannot give further information which is not under his custody. The appeal is disposed off accordingly. A K DASH, AS and FAA 20.03.15
336 S.S. CHAWLA CICOM/A/2015/60022
The appeallant is being submitted his appeal on folowing points of his RTI application for which CPIO has not furnished correct information in his letter No.CICOM/R/2014/60403/KY dated 09/01/2015. Point-2: Appellant has sought the very specific information under this para from CPIO concern. The appellant has sought the information in very crystal manner regarding copy of relevant policy matter wherein Honble Commission endorse the non-compliance complaint as per their policy. Point-3 Appellants/complaiants had submitted their complaiants to the Commission when public authorities not furnished the information after CIC decision. These complaints were also duly acknowledged by the office of the Commission, hence the such information is not maintained by the Commission Registry, is incorrect information. Point -4 When the Commission is being acknowledged the non-compliance complaints in these circumstances, no such information is maintained by the Registry is also incorrect. In view of FAA is requested to kindly look into the matter and direct to the concern CPIO to furnish the relevant complete information to the appellant as sought by the appellant in his RTI application.
Not Available
337 M C Shivashankar CICOM/A/2014/00067
incomplete, misleading or false information
Since it is a copy endorsed to FAA, no action has been taken. It has been wrongly registered as first appeal.
338 Dev Kumar Sanghi CICOM/A/2014/00103
no response received
It is not a 1st appeal. It has been wrongly registered. Hence, treat it cancelled.
339 Narender Pal CICOM/A/2014/00148
incomplete information
340 Kishanlal Mittal CICOM/A/2014/60059
(a) It is surprising to see that the CPIO claims that the online application registration dated 5/10/14 was received by him on 10/10/2014. Online registered applications are transmitted immediately to CPIO. Thus he has made an incorrect claim. (b) Income information has been provided for points (a), (b). (c) CPIO has not provided complete information on point (c). The public authority had challenged the decision of CIC in Delhi High Court WP(C) 6088/2014, which was summarily dismissed. It is surprising to note that CIC has not initiated any action further to that. (d) No information has been provided on points (d) and (e). (e) No response was attached of PPS/Secretary CIC as mentioned by the CPIO. (f) Incomplete information provided on point (g). (g) Incomplete information provided on point (h). (h) No information provided on point (i). Observations of Hon Delhi High Court in case 6088/2014 should be taken into consideration while deciding the case.
Not Available
341 D Bharath Kumar CICOM/A/2015/00183
No Response
342 Arun Agarwal CICOM/A/2015/00192
Incomplete inforamtion
343 T S Sivakumar CICOM/A/2015/00200
incomplete Information
344 R K Mahajan CICOM/A/2015/00220
Incomplete Information
345 Medha Rani CICOM/A/2015/60014
The concerned CPIO has provide me a completely false and misleading information in response of my instant online RTI application. Complaint made by Shri Bishnu Kant Thakur directly to the CIC and as forwarded by the Presidents Secretariat to the CIC, is based on his fresh online RTI Application dated 13.09.2014 for that the CIC should have to provide it a freash registration number/file number and conduct hearing on that complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, in compliance of direction of the Honorable Supreme Court of India. But the concerned CPIO has stated some this else is his reply. Which is absolutely violating the direction of the Honorable Supreme Court of India. In light of above mentioned fact, I am making herewith a appeal under section 19 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 with a request that you may kindly direct the concerned CPIO that it should atleast provide me the fresh/new File Number of the Complaint made by Shri Bishnu Kant Thakur on 13.10.2014 to the CIC, which is based on his freash RTI application dated 13.09.2014 at the earliest.
Not Available
346 Bodh Krishna Thakur CICOM/A/2015/60015
The concerned CPIO has provide me a completely false and misleading information in response of my instant online RTI application. Complaint made by Shri Bishnu Kant Thakur directly to the CIC and as forwarded by the Presidents Secretariat to the CIC, is based on his fresh online RTI Application dated 13.09.2014 for that the CIC should have to provide it a freash registration number/file number and conduct hearing on that complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, in compliance of direction of the Honorable Supreme Court of India. But the concerned CPIO has stated some this else is his reply. Which is absolutely violating the direction of the Honorable Supreme Court of India. In light of above mentioned fact, I am making herewith a appeal under section 19 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 with a request that you may kindly direct the concerned CPIO that it should atleast provide me the fresh/new File Number of the Complaint made by Shri Bishnu Kant Thakur on 13.10.2014 to the CIC, which is based on his freash RTI application dated 13.09.2014 at the earliest.
Not Available
347 Bishnu Kant Thakur CICOM/A/2015/60016
The concerned CPIO has provide me a completely false and misleading information in response of my instant online RTI application. Complaint made by me to the CIC, is based on my fresh online RTI Application dated 13.09.2014 for that the CIC should have to provide it a fresh registration number/file number and conduct hearing on that complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, in compliance of direction of the Honorable Supreme Court of India. But the concerned CPIO has stated something else is his reply. This is absolutely violating the direction of the Honorable Supreme Court of India. In light of above mentioned fact, I am making herewith a appeal under section 19 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 with a request that you may kindly direct the concerned CPIO that it should atleast provide me the fresh/new File Number of the Complaint made by me on 13.10.2014 to the CIC, which is based on my fresh RTI application dated 13.09.2014 at the earliest.
Not Available
348 Medha Rani CICOM/A/2015/60017
The concerned CPIO has provide me a completely false and misleading information in response of my instant online RTI application. Complaint made by Shri Bishnu Kant Thakur directly to the CIC and as forwarded by the Presidents Secretariat to the CIC, is based on his fresh online RTI Application dated 13.09.2014 for that the CIC should have to provide it a freash registration number/file number and conduct hearing on that complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, in compliance of direction of the Honorable Supreme Court of India. But the concerned CPIO has stated some thing else is his reply. This is absolutely violating the direction of the Honorable Supreme Court of India. In light of above mentioned fact, I am making herewith a appeal under section 19 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 with a request that you may kindly direct the concerned CPIO that it should atleast provide me the fresh/new File Number of the Complaint made by Shri Bishnu Kant Thakur on 13.10.2014 to the CIC, which is based on his freash RTI application dated 13.09.2014 at the earliest.
Not Available
349 Bishnu Kant Thakur CICOM/A/2015/60019
The concerned CPIO has provide me a completely false and misleading information in response of my instant online RTI application. Complaint made by me to the CIC, is based on my fresh online RTI Application dated 13.09.2014 for that the CIC should have to provide it a fresh registration number/file number and conduct hearing on that complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, 2005, in compliance of direction of the Honorable Supreme Court of India. But the concerned CPIO has stated something else is his reply. This is absolutely violating the direction of the Honorable Supreme Court of India. In light of above mentioned fact, I am making herewith a appeal under section 19 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005 with a request that you may kindly direct the concerned CPIO that it should atleast provide me the fresh/new File Number of the Complaint made by me on 13.10.2014 to the CIC, which is based on my fresh RTI application dated 13.09.2014 at the earliest.
Not Available
350 MANIRAM SHARMA CICOM/A/2015/60020
The PIO has denied information on flimsy ground that the files are with Commissioner. This is not an acceptable ground under RTI ACt.
Not Available
The CPIO, Shri Mohapatra, DR to IC(MP) is directed to re-examine the matter and provide appropriate response to the appellant within 10 days.
351 Shreyans Jain CICOM/A/2015/60021
Dear Sir, On your portal, there is no facility to select public authority: Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. Therefore, it is hereby requested to you to kindly forward the application to the concerned public authority either physically or electronically. Kindly do not dispose of the application without providing Information. Kindly also refer to section 6 (3) of RTI Act and question no. 5 of FAQ provided at your portal. Thanks & Regards Shreyans Jain
Not Available
The response given by the CPIO is satisfactory and does not require any intervention.
352 nitin shakya CICOM/A/2015/60024
it is requested that the required information be provided .the information is not provided till now.
Not Available
353 M Venkoba Rao CICOM/A/2015/60026
Sir, CPIO has given a reply to the appellant which does not provide the information sought by him. As per RTI act 2005 (section 7), the CPIO either provide the information or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in section 8 and 9. 2.. Further, from the reply of the CPIO, it is apparent that the deemed CPIO (Dy. Registrar of the registry of information commissioner Sri. Vijaya Sharma) is guilty of not transferring the concerned case file along with all the relevant papers to the CPIO, to enable him to furnish the information with in the specified time. 3.Hence, I request you to (a) order may be passed directing the CPIO to furnish the information sought in RTI application free of cost by Reg/Speed post: and (b) Appropriate action may be initiated against the deemed CPIO, as he/she has shown dereliction to statutory duty/responsibility imposed on him/her by RTI act.
Not Available
Direction is given to to DR to IC(VS) cum CPIO, Shri V.K. Sharma to transfer the concerned case file to DR to IC(MP) under intimation to the appellant within 10 days.
354 Jaigopal Soni CICOM/A/2015/60027
Neither provided the information nor transferred the application u/s 6(3) of RTI Act to the concern section officer because information is available with CIC other section
Not Available
Direction is given to Shri B.D. Harit, DR to IC(YA) cum CPIO to take assistance from NIC official in the CIC to access the scanned/ electronic copy of the online complaint and provide the same to the appellant within 10 days.
355 Ajaykumar Muchakurthi CICOM/A/2015/60031
I also requested you to send me procedure of obtaining information from any department without revealing our identity either through Post also. I had also requested you to provide me details regarding the general procedure after hearing such as how many days it take to send a decision copy after hearing. But without giving above information you people had returned my application. Please look into it Sir.
Not Available
The response given by the CPIO, RTI Cell is appropriate. Therefore, no further information can be provided in this regard by the CPIO.
356 R R Kuppusamy CICOM/A/2015/00236
incomplete Information
357 B Nagesh Kumar CICOM/A/2015/00203
Incomplete Information
358 Aseem Takyar CICOM/A/2015/00213
Incomplete Information
359 Rashmi Bhardwaj CICOM/A/2015/00214
Incomplete Information
360 Sailendra Kumar Sarangi CICOM/A/2015/00215
Incomplete Information
361 Subhas Chatterjee CICOM/A/2015/00218
Incomplete Information
362 P K Malhotra CICOM/A/2015/00223
incomplete Information
363 Vijay Kumar Garg CICOM/A/2015/00224
incomplete Information
364 Vijay Kumar Garg CICOM/A/2015/00225
incomplete Information
365 Vijay Kumar Garg CICOM/A/2015/00226
Incomplete information
366 Vijay Kumar Garg CICOM/A/2015/00227
Incomplete Information
367 Ashok Kumar CICOM/A/2015/00237
Incomplete Information
368 Bhupinder Kumar CICOM/A/2015/00243
Incomplete Information
369 Sharadhanand Yogacharya CICOM/A/2015/00246
Incomplete Information
370 R.K. Mahajan CICOM/A/2015/00247
Incomplete Information
371 Vishambhar Singh CICOM/A/2015/00248
Incomplete Information
372 Bindeshwari Prasad Mehta CICOM/A/2015/00254
Incomplete Information
This is not a 1st appeal. This is a reminder to Shri V.K. Sharma, DO to IC(VS) with a copy to FAA. It has been registered as 1st appeal inadvertently. Hence, no action is required.
373 R P Azad CICOM/A/2015/00228
Incomplete Information
374 Sajjan Kumar CICOM/A/2015/00230
Incomplete Information
375 Sajjan Kumar CICOM/A/2015/00231
Incomplete Information
376 Dalip Singh CICOM/A/2015/00239
Incomplete Information
377 Pawan Kumar Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00242
Incomplete Information
378 K G Tiwari CICOM/A/2015/00244
Incomplete Information
379 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00250
Incomplete Information
380 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00251
Incomplete Information
381 Ram Chandu CICOM/A/2015/00256
Incomplete information
382 Prakash Chand CICOM/A/2015/00234
Incomplete Information
383 Vibhuti Narayan Dubey CICOM/A/2015/00245
Incomplete Information
384 Shantibai Tulsiram Rekwar CICOM/A/2015/00249
Incomplete Information
385 Mrunal A . Savalwade CICOM/A/2015/00252
Incomplete Information
386 Shri Mangla Kant Sinha CICOM/A/2015/00258
Incomplete Information
387 Mrinal Kanti Rakshit CICOM/A/2015/00259
Incomplete Information
388 Ratan Das CICOM/A/2015/00265
Incomplete Information
389 M N Mathur CICOM/A/2015/00273
Incomplete Information
390 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00276
Incomplete Information
391 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00277
Incomplete Information
392 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00278
Incomplete Information
393 Jai Dhara Singh CICOM/A/2015/00281
Incomplete Information
394 Ashfaq Mohammad CICOM/A/2015/00284
Incomplete Information
395 dr pradeep kumar CICOM/A/2015/60030
when cic is not giving RTI reply how can we expect from other department ,,,,, so i request a 1st appeal authority to make penalty and help me to get my RTI
Not Available
Factual information has been provided by the CPIO cum DO to IC(YA), therefore, no further information can be provided in this regard by the CPIO.
396 Prasad T CICOM/A/2015/60032
Dear Appellate Authority, I would like to know to whom( Correct CPIO) should i approach for my request to get fulfilled. My request No : CICOM/R/2015/60091 Thanks Prasad T
Not Available
The response given by the CPIO, RTI Cell is appropriate as the information is neither held by the CIC nor the CIC as a public authority is concerned with the subject matter. Therefore, no further information can be provided in this regard by the CPIO.
397 Sonal S Chhajed CICOM/A/2015/60037
Dear Sir/Madam , With Regards to this RTI application CICOM/R/2015/60109 filed , the RTI portal says that the application is returned to the applicant . I would like to know that since the Department of Personnel and Training is responsible for implementation of RTI and looks after it , I would like to know how the RTI application are processed . And through the application filed earlier I wanted to seek the information that is related to the processing of RTI applications . And If the Central Information Commission is not capable of Providing the information who will provide the information . Can you direct my application to the authority which will provide me this information . Since many RTI applications are received everyday there must be a way and procedure in which the information is passed to the applicants , I just want to understand the same . I hope my queries will be answered . If the Central Information Commission do not have the information I would kindly request it to be forwarded to the authority will is capable of providing me the right information with regards to my RTI application CICOM/R/2015/60109 . Or if the Central Commission of Information could let me know who would help me in getting the information , I would be very grateful. Thanks and Warm regards , Sonal
Not Available
The response of the CPIO, CIC is appropriate and does not require any modification or interference.
398 ASHFAQ AHAMED CICOM/A/2015/60041
Please refer to my RTI Application point No. 2(a)(b) 1.According to yours reply, it was stated that to send the query to TAMILNADU SIC. 2.But my appplication is not about TAMILNADU STATE PIO OFFICERS. 3.My Apllication is regarding all about CENTRAL GOVERNEMENT PUBLIC AUTHORITIES and its RTI application , RTI rejected ,First Appeals and second appeals. So please provide the details regarding this matter within the time period.
Not Available
As per yr RTI application you have sought information regarding name, address, telephone etc of Central Public Information Officers(CPIO) working in Tamilnadu State. Hence, the reply furnished by the CPIO is appropriate.
399 ASHFAQ AHAMED CICOM/A/2015/60042
Please refer to my Online RTI Application Query No.1: The information was requested regarding the Central Government Public Information Officers AND NOT REGARDING THE STATE OFFICERs. And this couldnt be dealt with TN Government, which is already been advised by TN state(Personnel and Administrative Reforms Dept) that to contact the State Government. So please provide the list within the time period Query No.4: In this regard, please provide the information according to RTI Act 2005, Section 2(f)
Not Available
The reply furnished by the CPIO is appropriate, therefore, no further information can be provided in this regard by the CPIO.
400 Manoj Kumar Anand CICOM/A/2015/60047
I have requested for the following information:- Quote Request you to please provide the complete detail of positions identified along with eligibility criterion and emoluments for differently able people under Chapter - VI - para 32 of People with Disability Act 1995 and differently able people hired along with their name, position and address under Chapter - VI - para 33 of People with Disability Act 1995 on permanent basis by Central Information Commission from January 1996 to December 2014 in all three categories (Blindness or low vision, Hearing Impairment and Locomotor Disability). Under para 36 of Chapter VI (People with Disability Act 1995) there is a provision of vacancies for differently able people to be carried forward as per the excerpts given below:- Quote Chapter - VI para 36. Vacancies not filled up to be carried forward - Where in any recruitment year any vacancy under section 33, cannot be filled up due to non-availability of a suitable person with disability or, for any other sufficient reason, such vacancy shall be carried forward in the succeeding recruitment year and if in the succeeding recruitment year also suitable person with disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange among the three categories and only when there is no parson with disability available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability: Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an establishment is such that a given category of person cannot be employed, the vacancies may be interchanged among the three categories with the prior approval of the appropriate Government. Unquote Request you to please provide the complete detail (complete detail means name, position and address of employees) of all the vacancies those are carried forwarded and differently able people hired and vacant positions along with eligibility criterion and emoluments detail by following the above mentioned (Chapter - VI para 36) procedure of People with Disability Act 1995 for the period of January 1996 to December 2014. Please inform in case I have submit any further amount for obtaining photocopies / pendrive / CD. I look forward to receiving above detail as per the RTI Act. Regards, Manoj Kumar Anand 9910007717 sakasham.india@gmail.com Unquote I got a reply mentioning support document not provided by me. This information can be given on a plain sheet however, I have prepared a format and the same is attached here. Looking forward to early receipts of the requested information. Regards, Manoj Kumar Aannd 9910007717
The CPIO in the CIC has nothing to do in obtaining the information from any other public authority on which the appellant has been already suitably replied to by the CPIO on the RTI application.
401 R G Kulkarni CICOM/A/2015/00201
Incomplete Inforamtion
402 A K Omray CICOM/A/2015/00216
Incomplete Information
403 M L Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00229
incomplete Information
404 Sajjan Kumar CICOM/A/2015/00232
Incomplete Information
405 S P Goyal CICOM/A/2015/00233
Incomplete Information
406 H K Bansal CICOM/A/2015/00235
Incomplete Information
407 P. Sugunawati CICOM/A/2015/00238
Incomplete Information
408 C S Ghai CICOM/A/2015/00240
Incomplete Information
409 C S Ghai CICOM/A/2015/00241
Incomplete Information
410 I K Saini CICOM/A/2015/00255
NO Response
411 Girish Chander Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00260
Incomplete Information
412 Ashish Srivastava CICOM/A/2015/00261
Incomplete Information
413 Gopal Krishan Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00263
Incomplete Information
414 Pritam Kaur CICOM/A/2015/00264
incomplete Information
415 B Parameshwar CICOM/A/2015/00266
Incomplete Information
416 Kamlesh Kashyap CICOM/A/2015/00272
Incomplete Information
417 Sanjay Dayal CICOM/A/2015/00274
Incomplete Information
418 Akhilanand Mishra CICOM/A/2015/00282
Incomplete Information
419 Gopal Kansara CICOM/A/2015/00288
incomplete information
420 Saida Khatun CICOM/A/2015/00292
incomplete information
421 pwan Aggarwal CICOM/A/2015/00294
incomplete information
422 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00295
incomplete information
423 Rajeev Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00297
incomplete information
424 Bahadur Singh CICOM/A/2015/00298
incomplete information
425 Vivek Kumar CICOM/A/2015/00299
incomplete information
426 Rajni Devi CICOM/A/2015/00300
no response
427 B Parameshwar CICOM/A/2015/00304
Incomplete Information
428 T S Sivakumar CICOM/A/2015/00309
Incomplete Information
429 Mulbai Bijubhai Chavda CICOM/A/2015/00301
No response
430 Pawan Agarwal CICOM/A/2015/00307
Incomplete Information
431 Jai Dhara Singh CICOM/A/2015/00308
Incomplete Information
432 Girish Prasad Gupta CICOM/A/2015/00315
Incomplete Information
433 J D Singh CICOM/A/2015/00316
Incomplete Information
434 Kapil Dev Aggarwal CICOM/A/2015/00262
Incomplete Information
435 Harinarayan Pathak CICOM/A/2015/00305
Incomplete Information
436 D M Akolkar CICOM/A/2015/00318
Incomplete Information
437 N C Gupta CICOM/A/2015/00319
Incomplete Information
438 Praveen Kashyap CICOM/A/2015/00321
Incomplete Information
439 J D Singh CICOM/A/2015/00335
No Response
440 J D Singh CICOM/A/2015/00340
Incomplete Information
441 PARAS NATH SINGH CICOM/A/2015/60057
First Appeal is attached herewith.
442 Rajeev Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00268
Incomplete Information
443 Sham Sunder CICOM/A/2015/00275
incomplete Information
444 M Danasegar CICOM/A/2015/00286
Incomplete Information
445 Jagdish V Gursahani CICOM/A/2015/00289
incomplete information
446 Rajeev Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00296
incomplete information
447 Mahender Singh Tyagi CICOM/A/2015/00336
No Response
448 Anil Dutta Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00339
Incomplete Information
449 Dr Bijaya Prasad Samantaray CICOM/A/2015/00341
Incomplete Information
450 C S Arora CICOM/A/2015/00344
Incomplete Information
451 Geeta CICOM/A/2015/00349
Incomplete Information
452 Dr.Vinod Surana CICOM/A/2015/00257
Incomplete Information
453 Rajeev Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00271
Incomplete Information
454 R K Grover CICOM/A/2015/00320
Incomplete Information
455 I K Saini CICOM/A/2015/00343
Incomplete Information
456 Deepak Sethi CICOM/A/2015/00347
Incomplete Information
457 Ashwani K Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00352
Incomplete Information
458 M Danasegar CICOM/A/2015/00280
incomplete information
459 M Danasegar CICOM/A/2015/00293
incomplete information
460 Subhash Chandra Agrawal CICOM/A/2015/00311
Incomplete Informatoin
461 Brahmadeb Bandyopadhyay CICOM/A/2015/00317
Incomplete Information
462 Satya Vijay Singh CICOM/A/2015/00222
Incomplete Information
463 Amitava Ghosh CICOM/A/2015/00324
Incomplete Information
464 Sounder Raj CICOM/A/2015/00328
Incomplete Information
465 Raj Kumar Mishra CICOM/A/2015/00329
NO Response
466 K V Krishnan CICOM/A/2015/00332
Incomplete Information
467 Ainul Haque Mazumdar CICOM/A/2015/00353
Incomplete Information
468 Saurabh Kumar Dixit CICOM/A/2015/00355
Incomplete Information
469 Dr M C Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00362
Incomplete Information
470 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00001
no response
471 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00193
Incomplete Information
472 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00219
Incomplete Information
473 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00221
Incomplete Information
474 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00269
Incomplete Information
475 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00270
Incomplete Information
476 Dr Terence Nazareth CICOM/A/2015/00290
incomplete information
477 Terence Nazareth CICOM/A/2015/00291
incomplete information
478 R P Azad CICOM/A/2015/00325
Incomplete Information
479 G S Dhodi CICOM/A/2015/00326
Incomplete Information
480 Chander Verma CICOM/A/2015/00327
Incomplete Information
481 Rajender Saxena CICOM/A/2015/00330
Incomplete Information
482 R L Goyal CICOM/A/2015/00337
Incomplete Information
483 Rajinder K Singla CICOM/A/2015/00342
Incomplete Information
484 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00345
Incomplete Information
485 S T Srinivasan CICOM/A/2015/00348
Incomplete Information
486 Girish Prasad Gupta CICOM/A/2015/00354
Incomplete Information
It seems that the reply given by Shri Dhirender Kumar, ex.DR to ex.CIC(VS) & CPIO to the appellant is not factually correct and have not taken into account the factual details available in record. The matter is, therefore, remanded back to Shri Parkash, DO to CIC & CPIO to re examine the matter and give a fresh reply based on the facts within 10 working days from the date of receipt of this order. There has been some delay in disposal of the appeal as there were frequent changes in designating the First Appellate Authority of the Commission after Shri A.K. Dash, Additional Secretary & First Appellate Authority demitted office on 26.03.2015 leading to accumulation of cases. I have been designated FAA on 30.07.2015. A large number of first appeals were pending for disposal at the time of taking over the charge of the First Appellate Authority. Meanwhile, the FAA was engaged before and after the Annual Convention of the Commission and other administrative works.
487 Raj Kumar Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00361
Incomplete Information
488 S N Murthy Vaddadi CICOM/A/2015/00367
incomplete Information
489 Gopal Krishan CICOM/A/2015/00371
incomplete information
490 Ashwani K Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00374
No Response
491 Yateendra Singh Jafa CICOM/A/2015/00375
Incomplete Information
492 R K Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00376
No Response
493 Sushil Kumar Taparia CICOM/A/2015/00380
incomplete information
494 M Danasegar CICOM/A/2015/00381
Incomplete informaiton
495 Shiva Nand Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00383
NO Response
496 Gagan Bihari Jena CICOM/A/2015/00386
Incomplete Information
497 Rajiv Bhardwaj CICOM/A/2015/00387
Incomplete Information
498 Rajesh Bhardwaj CICOM/A/2015/00390
Incomplete Information
499 Pardeep Bajaj CICOM/A/2015/00396
Incomplete Information
500 Praveen Kant CICOM/A/2015/00398
Incomplete Information
501 Praveen Kant CICOM/A/2015/00399
Incomplete Information
502 Praveen Kant CICOM/A/2015/00400
Incomplete Information
503 M Danasegar CICOM/A/2015/00402
Incomplete information
504 Jagdish Chander CICOM/A/2015/00405
Incomplete Information
505 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00406
Incomplete Information
506 J C Kohli CICOM/A/2015/00414
No Response
507 Sandeep Pahal CICOM/A/2015/00415
No Response
508 Atul Kumar Mehta CICOM/A/2015/00420
Incomplete Information
509 Nitin Kumar Mittal CICOM/A/2015/00422
No Response
510 Tejinder Singh CICOM/A/2015/00429
No Response
511 Sandeep Pahal CICOM/A/2015/00430
NO Response
512 G S Dhodi CICOM/A/2015/00438
Incomplete Information
513 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00439
NO Response by CPIOs
514 Jagdish Chander CICOM/A/2015/00440
Incomplete Information
515 Varun Gupta CICOM/A/2015/00441
Incomplete Information
516 Suresh Kumar CICOM/A/2015/00443
Incomplete Information
517 P Kannan CICOM/A/2015/00447
NO information provided by CPIO
518 I K Saini CICOM/A/2015/00452
No Response
519 K K Sukumaran CICOM/A/2015/00454
No Response
520 Rakesh Kumar CICOM/A/2015/00459
No Response
521 Santosh Kumar Kappu CICOM/A/2015/00468
incomplete information
522 Dev Ashish Bhattacharya CICOM/A/2015/00469
No response
523 Surendra Kumar Jain CICOM/A/2015/00471
Incomplete information
524 Bivas Bindu Kolay CICOM/A/2015/00483
incomplete information
525 P K Jalali CICOM/A/2015/00489
No Response
526 Kishanlal Mittal CICOM/A/2015/60046
Dear Sir, The CPIO has closed the request for information by attaching a reply document in which lot of information was claimed to have been attached. No information has been received till date, inspite of the closure of request about 2 weeks back. You are requested to direct the CPIO to provide the information without any delay, free of cost. Regards.
Not Available
The CPIO,Shri T.K. Mohapatra has intimated that the reply has already been sent to the applicant along with all enclosures by post on 23.04.15 and again on 28.04.15. The appeal appeal seems to have been filed before receipt of the reply from CPIO. There has been some delay in disposal of the appeal as there were frequent changes in designating the First Appellate Authority of the Commission after Shri A.K. Dash, Additional Secretary & First Appellate Authority demitted office on 26.03.2015 leading to accumulation of cases. I have been designated FAA on 30.07.2015. A large number of first appeals were pending for disposal at the time of taking over the charge of the First Appellate Authority. Meanwhile, the FAA was engaged before and after the Annual Convention of the Commission and other administrative works.
527 Dr G V Rao CICOM/A/2015/60055
Sir, I had sought the following from the CPIO Please provide me certified copies of the written submissions made by the two respondents in CIC/SS/A/2013/002-480-YA where I was the appellant. Whereas the CPIO provided me e-copies instead of hard copies. Therefore this first appeal seeking directions on CPIO, CIC to provide me certified hard copies immediately at the address provided within this online First Appeal.
Not Available
Though the DR to IC(YA) cum CPIO, Shri B D Harit has e-mailed the documents in the above mentioned case file but the appellant is requesting for the certified hard copies of the same. Direction is accordingly given to Shri B.D. Harit, DR to IC(YA) cum CPIO to provide the certified copies of the written submissions made by the two respondents in case File No.CIC/SS/A/2013/-002-480-YA within 05 working days from the date of receipt of this order. Achla Sinha, AS cum FAA CIC, New Delhi
528 USHA DEVI CICOM/A/2015/60075
SEVA ME, SHRI S.P.BECK JI, FAA , CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION NEW DELHI 110066 KRIPYA REGISTRATION NO.CICOM/R/2014/00691 DATED-:29/12/2014 KA SANDARBH LENE KI KRIPA KI JAYE JISME PARA NO.2 (II) KE NICHE ME YAH LIKHA HAI KI please note that the above written reply dated06.12.2014 of the CPIO is under examination of the commission.KRIPYA COMMISSION ME KYA NIRNAY LIYA GAYA BATANE KI KRIPA KI JAYE. AAPKA VISWASI USHA DEVI
Not Available
The CPIO, Shri Vijay Bhalla has responded to you vide his letter dated 28.07.15 that Your case was examined in the Commission office with reference to the CPIO letter dated 16.02.2015 addressed to you and copy endorsed to the Commission. In compliance to the Commission directions, the CPIO has provided to you a copy of the letter dated 12.02.2015 along with his explanatory letter dated 16.02.2015. Since the Commission directions given in their order dated 02.07.2014 stand complied with, your case has been treated as closed. The above said reply furnished by the CPIO is appropriate and does not require any intervention of the FAA.
529 SHRI KANT SHEKHAR CICOM/A/2015/60082
SMT.ACHLA SINHA JI, FAA, CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, NEW DELHI-110066. KRIPYA MERE APPLICATION DATED - : 12-06-2015 ME UCHIT KARYAYAIEE KARNE KI KRIPA KI JAYE. AAPKA VISWASI SHRI KANT SHEKHAR
Not Available
You have sought information about action taken on your letter dated 12.06.2015. Shri Vijay Bhalla, DO to IC SH vide letter dated 03.08.2015 has furnished the reply that the concerned bank has complied with the order of the Commission CIC SH A 2014 000773 and therefore the file has been closed. Since, the information sought has been provided by the CPIO, no further action is required on the part of FAA.
530 Anbazhagan P CICOM/A/2015/60083
Dear Sir, My RTI request is not related to any State Government.It is related to Central Information Commission (CIC) and Central University of Orissa (CUO).It is ridiculous to get such a reply even from the CIC. Please provide information to my queries accordingly and transfer my RTI request to CUO u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act,2005 as the matter in the attached file pertains to CUO. Than you. Anbazhagan P
Not Available
The reply furnished by the CPIO is appropriate and does not require any intervention of the FAA.
531 Dr. Nityananda Das CICOM/A/2015/60085
Date: 13.08.2015 To The First Appellate Authority Central Information Commission August Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi-110066 Subject: Submission of First Appeal in respect of my RTI application dated 08.07.2015 Sir, 1. I submitted my RTI application dated 08.07.2015 online (Registration No. CICOM/R/2015/60279). 2. The Deputy Registrar & CPIO, CIC vide Letter No. CIC/CPIO/SA/2015/43 dated 05.08.2015 provided me the following information Reply to points No (1) and (3) - The CPIO is not competent to comment on the decision/observation made by the Honble Commissioner in any case. Reply to point No(2)- As the issue relating to framing of guidelines relates to Ministry of Personnel & Training, a copy of the RTI application is referred to that Ministry for providing requisite reply to the appellant directly. 3. The CPIO did not provide information in respect of query at Point No. (1) and (3). In my RTI application I did not seek any comment from the CPIO. (i) In the query at Point No.(1) we requested to inform whether the Para 25 (in the CIC decision No CIC/AD/2013/001326 SA dated 25 Jun 2014) is the Observation of CIC on the case of misuse of RTI Act OR it is a Decision of CIC on the case of misuse of RTI Act. We do not want any comment of CPIO on this query. The Para 25 (in the CIC decision No CIC/AD/2013/001326 SA dated 25 Jun 2014) will be either an observation or a decision. If CPIO does not have any information / clarity, he has option to transfer the query to the concerned office of CIC for providing necessary information under section 6(3) of the RTI Act. (ii) In the query at Point No. (3), we requested to inform the specific section of RTI Act / RTI Rules wherein it is mentioned that the Central Information Commissioner is empowered to introduce a new condition for refusal of RTI application (for example repetition of RTI application as the ground among others for refusal). Seeking relevant section of RTI Act becomes necessary because the observation / decision given vide letter No. CIC/AD/2013/001326 SA dated 25 Jun 2014 is being continuously used by the Ministry of Defence while denying information to the RTI applicants and the citizens are badly affected. We would like to refer the relevant section of RTI Act. Section 4. (1) Every public authority shall c) publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons 4. In view of above I am requesting the First Appellate Authority to provide information sought at Point No. (1) & (3) in my RTI application dated 08.07.2015 at the earliest. Yours sincerely Nityananda Das PAR Division, IGFRI Gwalior Road, Jhansi (UP) -284003 Mobile 09452591637
Not Available
The FAA does not find any infirmity in the response of the CPIO given to appellant. The CPIO and FAA of the Commission have no powers/jurisdiction to comment and give opinion on the decision of the Commission.
532 Anand Nallan CICOM/A/2015/60086
Question by me (3) CIC bench has issued judgement CIC/BS/A/2014/000282/6746 dated 12 January 2015 against my DoT related RTI. The DoT has not made compliance to CIC order as on date, despite several reminders. The copy of the same letters were also addressed to CIC. I believe CIC will take action on one fine morning against such non-compliance. What is the procedure for handling non-compliance by such CIC final hearing orders by CPIOs and AAs Answer by CPIO Point No: 03: The records of the second appeal file No. CIC/BS/A/2014/000282 has been checked thoroughly. The concerned CPIO, DOT, Bengaluru has been addressed to ensure that compliance of the Commissions order has been made to the applicant under intimation to this Office (copy enclosed) My First Appeal with FAA: Sir, Please go through my RTI question and CPIOs reply. It is self explanatory. The CPIO has furnished FALSE and MIS-LEADING information. Kindly provide the correct information at an early date.
Not Available
The FAA of the Commission does not have any jurisdiction to comment on the decision of the Commission and has got no powers to issue any direction on the decision of the Commission. In view of the above, the prayers made in the appeal by the appellant are beyond the jurisdiction of the FAA.
533 Gopalakrishnan M.S CICOM/A/2015/60087
Dear Sir, I have not received any answers although I received an email on June 17th 2015, saying that the request has been disposed off. I am unable to trace the request in my registered request dashboard. I need the information urgently. Please resend a copy my email if answers were generated. I Gopalakrishnan
Not Available
The former CPIO, RTI Cell, Shri Dhirender Kumar has responded that Point 1 to 6: No information sought. The applicant is seeking opinion of the CPIO which is not covered within the definition of information under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. The reply of CPIO, RTI Cell is appropriate and does not require intervention of the FAA.
534 USHA DEVI CICOM/A/2015/60089
SEVA ME, FAA, CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION , NEW DELHI - : 110066 MERE APPLICATION DATED - : 19-03-2015 AUR 26-03-2015 ME UCHIT KARYAYAIEE KARNE KI KRIPA KI JAYE. AAPKA VISWASI USHA DEVI
Not Available
The specific information sought by you in your RTI application has been furnished by the CPIO cum DR in Central Registry. Moreover, you have not made any appeal against the response of the said RTI application. Hence, this cannot be treated as first appeal, therefore, it has been dismissed.
535 N.HARIHARAN CICOM/A/2015/60090
The application was submitted online on 12/06/2015 and the same was sent to the concerned section in Central Information commission on 03/07/2015/ Eenthough the stipulated one month time now expired, there is no response to my appilcation. The item is still shown as pending in the online portal I request that the information sought for may kindly be furnished to me
Not Available
The CPIO, RTI Cell has transferred the RTI application online to Shri M.K. Sharma, Registrar on 03.07.15 but as per appellant he has not received any reply till the filing of the first appeal. Since, it is the matter of July 2015, the FAA presumed that the reply might have been sent to the appellant and if not direction is given to Shri M.K. Sharma, Registrar, CIC to furnish the information within 05 days from the date of receipt of the order. There has been some delay in disposal of the appeal as there were frequent changes in designating the First Appellate Authority of the Commission after Shri A.K. Dash, Additional Secretary & First Appellate Authority demitted office on 26.03.2015 leading to accumulation of cases. I have been designated FAA on 30.07.2015. A large number of first appeals were pending for disposal at the time of taking over the charge of the First Appellate Authority. Meanwhile, the FAA was engaged before and after the Annual Convention of the Commission and other administrative works.
536 RAJENDER K RAMCHANDANI CICOM/A/2015/60094
The RTI Application dispose by CPIO without Appling Norms of the RTI Act vide Section 6 (3) & Didnt transfer Application to the NIC CENTER OF INDIA , this is highly objectionable in the eyes of Law. Note: IF in future any type of Writ Petetions move to the High Court by any Applicant against any CIC Orders then there possibility / will be questions for Video recording. Hope the decision will be on the Merrits of the Case.
Not Available
The response of the CPIO is appropriate as no audio/video recording is maintained either in the CIC or in the NIC Centres. So there is no question arises for transferring the RTI application under section 6(3) to the NIC Centre.
537 RAMESH CICOM/A/2015/60095
I want to apply for Pre-nursery (Private School). My child will be 3.5 yrs. in coming December. my question is :- 1) I have State Level OBC Certificate issue on my old Delhi address (Parents house) & / Voter ID-card & Birth Certificate my own (different address) house. Whether I would face any issue regarding admission of my child. 2) I have also Central OBC Certificate YADAV (Non Creamy Layer issued from Delhi current address). Wheather School will accept the central level certificate for disadvantaged group admission.
Not Available
The reply given by the CPIO is appropriate that no such information is available in CIC. You may approach the concerned public authority to get the information.
538 yogesh CICOM/A/2015/60116
I have filed the on line RTI application on dated 09-08-2015. Thereafter the CPIO(RTI Cell) of CIC issued a letter vide No. CICOM/R/205/60334 DATED 21-08-2015 to JS(Law), JS(Law) JS(MoRE) & Registrar of CIC to furnish the information as requested to the RTI(Cell) immediately, latest by 28-08-2015, so that the reply /information could be sent to the applicant at the earliest. But no response has been received from the concerned officers , therefore CPIO(RTI Cell issued another letter to me & copy of the same sent to JS(Law), JS(Law) JS(MoRE) & Registrar of CIC vide letter no. CICOM/R/205/60334 DATED 08-09-2015 & also directed to filed the first Appeal before Smt. Achla Sinha /FAA of CIC. Therefore I have filing the first Appeal before first appellate authority. Prayer :- . As the CPIO failed to provide any reply within 30 calendar days , therefore all the information may be provided under section 7(6) of RTI Act-2005. As the working of the Deemed CPIO against the norms of RTI Act-2005, therefore disciplinary action may be conduct with penalty proceeding u/s 20 of RTI Act-2005. Delhi Dated September 25, 2015 Yogesh Kumar
Not Available
From the above and as confirmed from the RTI Cell, no information has been provided to the appellant till date despite of reminder dated 08.09.15 sent by the CPIO, RTI Cell to the JS(Admin), JS(Law), JS(MoRe) and Registrar, CIC. Direction is accordingly given to the JS(Admin), JS(Law), JS(MoRe) and Registrar, CIC to send your response to the CPIO, RTI Cell within 05 working days from the date of receipt of the order and the CPIO RTI Cell on receiving the response from all concerned will immediately send the consolidated response to the appellant.
539 R K Mahajan CICOM/A/2015/00334
NO Response
540 Ram Sewak CICOM/A/2015/00359
Incomplete Information
541 R K Grover CICOM/A/2015/00370
incomplete Information
542 Dr Mohan Lal CICOM/A/2015/00445
Incomplete Information
543 Intessar Ahmed CICOM/A/2015/60081
Appeal for information /documents under RTI Act2005. Sir, Requested Information has not been provided although information is available with the CIC in material form and also not exempted from disclosure hence appeal to kindly direct the concerned CPIO to provide the requested information without further delay. No information/documents have been provided through Dy. Registrar & CPIO, CIC letter No. : CICOM/R/2015/60204/1/SH Dated: 05.06.2015. Shri Vijay Bhalla Dy. Registrar & CPIO, CIC vide letter No. CICOM/R/2015/60204/1/SH Dated: 05.06.2015 transferred the RTI application to Sh. V K Sharma, Deputy Registrar, Registry of IC(VS) with a request to either furnish the requisite information directly to RTI-Applicant OR if necessary, transfer the file CIC/SG/A/2012/001302/19309/VS along with it relevant papers to the Registry of IC(SH), at the earliest. Further to this no response has been received from the concerned CPIO of the CIC although mandated time period (30 calendar days) has already been elapsed. Hence non-furnishing of information is considered as deemed refusal as specified under RTI Act. I therefore request to kindly direct the CPIO to furnish the requested information without further delay. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, (Intessar Ahmed)
Not Available
PA to FAA spoken with the appellant on date over mobile number as given by the appellant in the first appeal and the appellant informed that he has not received the response of his RTI application till date from the CPIO. In response to the RTI application, Shri Vijay Bhalla, DO to IC SH vide letter dated 05.06.15 had requested to Shri V K Sharma, DO to ex.IC VS either furnish the requisite information directly to the RTI applicant or if necessary, transfer the file No.CIC SG A 2012 001302 19309 VS along with its relevant papers to the registry of IC SH. As per appellant, further to this no response has been received from the concerned CPIO of the CIC. Direction is accordingly given to Shri V K Sharma, DO to ex.IC VS to transfer the above mentioned case file to the registry of IC SH within 05 working days from the date of receipt of this order and Shri Vijay Bhalla, DO to IC SH is directed that on receipt of the file, furnish the reply of the RTI application to the appellant within 05 days from the date of receipt of the file. There has been some delay in disposal of the appeal as there were frequent changes in designating the First Appellate Authority of the Commission after Shri A.K. Dash, Additional Secretary & First Appellate Authority demitted office on 26.03.2015 leading to accumulation of cases. I have been designated FAA on 30.07.2015. A large number of first appeals were pending for disposal at the time of taking over the charge of the First Appellate Authority. Meanwhile, the FAA was engaged before and after the Annual Convention of the Commission and other administrative works.
544 Nagarjuna Avula CICOM/A/2015/60088
Sir, I have sent speed post below letter with documents dated 05/08/2015 and item delivered dated 07/08/2015 (Speed post Track No. ET129486856IN). From Dr. Avula Nagarjuna S/o A. Venkatramaiah H.No.16-1-210 Marrimanu Street TIRUPATI - 517 501 Chittoor District Andhra Pradesh Mobile:9550577370 To Shri S.P. BECK, J.S., First Appellate Authority Central Information Commission 2nd Floor, B Wing August Kranti Bhavan Bhikaji Cama Place NEW DELHI - 110 066 Dear Sir Sub: Enclosed information - for my RTI application dated 30/06/2015 - Reg. Ref: No. CICOM/R/2015/80021(DR-Chief IC-8) dated 20/07/2015 I have enclosed information for my RTI application dated 30/06/2015. I have sent RTI application for information under RTI Act-2005 for seven months ago to the PIO, Railway Institute, Vijayawada and there is non-response till date to my RTI application dated 27/12/2014. Kindly provide details to my RTI application dated 30/06/2015 as early as possible. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, A.NAGARJUNA Enclosures: Photocopies of 1.Letter to PIO, Railway Institute, Vijayawada for information under RTI Act - 2005 dated 27/12/2004 2.Acknowledgement card received by Manager Indian Postal Order and Reg. Post receipt 3.Wedding Invitation 4.L. Dis. Lr. No. 5527/APIC-A/2015, dated 04/03/2015 5.Letter to CIC - Information not provided under RTI Act-2005 dated 02/04/2015 6.Acknowledgement card received by CIC dated 08/04/2015 7.Cross examination of Chikkala Krishna Rao dated 06/01/2015
Not Available
In this regard, it is to inform you that no appeal against the CPIO or PIO of another public authority lies to the First Appellate Authority in Central Information Commission. Hence, you are advised to file your first appeal in the concerned public authority. It is also to be mentioned that the Central Information Commission is the Second Appellate Authority of RTI applications filed with the various public authorities under the jurisdiction of Central Government. There has been some delay in disposal of the appeal as there were frequent changes in designating the First Appellate Authority of the Commission after Shri A.K. Dash, Additional Secretary & First Appellate Authority demitted office on 26.03.2015 leading to accumulation of cases. I have been designated FAA on 30.07.2015. A large number of first appeals were pending for disposal at the time of taking over the charge of the First Appellate Authority. Meanwhile, the FAA was engaged before and after the Annual Convention of the Commission and other administrative works.
545 Ajit Kumar Roy CICOM/A/2014/00035
no response within the time limit
546 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00346
Incomplete Information
547 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00391
Incomplete Information
548 Poonam Chand Choudhary CICOM/A/2015/00416
No Response
549 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00432
Incomplete Information
550 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00433
Incomplete Information
551 NA CICOM/A/2015/00434
Incomplete Information
552 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00435
Incomplete Information
553 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00436
Incomplete Information
554 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00448
Incomplete Information
555 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00460
Incomplete Information
556 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00461
Incomplete Information
557 Santosh Kumar Shrivastava CICOM/A/2015/00466
Incomplete Information
558 Sat Dev Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00485
Incomplete Information
559 Ram Swaroop Jangid CICOM/A/2016/00014
Incomplete Information
560 Hari Kishore CICOM/A/2016/00030
NO Response Received form DR(CR)
561 Amarjeet CICOM/A/2016/00031
No Response
562 Rajiv Batra CICOM/A/2016/00034
Incomplete Information
563 Rajiv Batra CICOM/A/2016/00036
Incomplete Information
564 Parshuram Sharma CICOM/A/2016/00045
Incomplete Information
565 R K Jain CICOM/A/2015/00217
Incomplete Information
566 G Veerabahu CICOM/A/2015/00267
Incomplete Information
567 Subhash Chandra Agrawal CICOM/A/2015/00312
Incomplete Information
568 Subhash Chandra Agrawal CICOM/A/2015/00313
Incomplete Information
569 Subhash Chandra Agrawal CICOM/A/2015/00314
Incomplete Information
570 Rajender Saxena CICOM/A/2015/00350
incomplete Information
571 Sandeep Kumar CICOM/A/2015/00360
Incomplete Information
572 Sat Pal Goyal CICOM/A/2015/00363
Incomplete Information
573 Sacchidanand Jha CICOM/A/2015/00365
Incomplete Information
574 Ajay Kumar Gupta CICOM/A/2015/00373
Incomplete Information
575 V K Tomar CICOM/A/2015/00378
Incomplete Information
576 Rajender Saxena CICOM/A/2015/00384
Incomplete information
577 Bal Kishan Renwal CICOM/A/2015/00385
Incomplete Information
578 Suresh Prasad Nishad CICOM/A/2015/00388
Incomplete Information
579 Narendra Prasad CICOM/A/2015/00392
Incomplete Information
580 Aseem Takyar CICOM/A/2015/00393
Incomplete Information
581 Neeraj Pant CICOM/A/2015/00397
Incomplete Information
582 Prabhu Dayal Shukla CICOM/A/2015/00401
NO response within the time limit
583 Asha CICOM/A/2015/00404
Incomplete Information
584 Aakash Pandey CICOM/A/2015/00412
Incomplete Information
585 Radheshyam Gupta CICOM/A/2015/00417
No Response
586 Ram Prakash CICOM/A/2015/00418
Incomplete Information
587 Vikas CICOM/A/2015/00423
Incomplete Information
588 Dharambir Singh CICOM/A/2015/00424
Incomplete Information
589 Rajiv Arya CICOM/A/2015/00426
incomplete Information
590 Sounder Raj CICOM/A/2015/00431
Incomplete Information
591 Girish Prasad Gupta CICOM/A/2015/00442
Incomplete Information
592 Niranjan Behera CICOM/A/2015/00455
Incomplete Information
593 Dr Terence Nazareth CICOM/A/2015/00456
Incomplete Information
594 Dr Terence Nazareth CICOM/A/2015/00457
Incomplete Information
595 Pawan Kumar CICOM/A/2015/00462
No Response
596 A M Attar CICOM/A/2015/00463
Incomplete Information
597 Anil Dutt Sharma CICOM/A/2015/00464
Incomplete Information
598 D L Lakshmana Rao CICOM/A/2015/00470
Incomplete Information
599 Ujjal Kumar Datta CICOM/A/2015/00472
Incomplete Information
600 Daya Shankar Shukl CICOM/A/2015/00476
Incomplete Information
601 Krishna Kumar Mishra CICOM/A/2015/00477
Incomplete Information
602 Gopal Kansara CICOM/A/2015/00481
incomplete information
603 I K Saini CICOM/A/2015/00484
Incomplete information
604 Sarbajit Roy CICOM/A/2015/60151
This First Appeal is filed on following grounds:- A) For that the referred note no. CICOM/R/2015/60663 dt. 8.12.2015 of the dealing CPIO of CIC was not provided to Appellant. The subsequent letter dt. 10.12.2015 is therefore unintelligble B) For that it appears that the dealing CPIO Shri Yogesh Kumar Singhal malafidely only sought the assistance u/s 5(4) of RTI Act. of a retired Private Secretary to now retired Chief Information Commissioner Shri Vijai Sharma to locate the information requested, whereas the CPIO ought to have located the information from the CICs own records and by CICs own diary numbers and dak registers from a serving officer of CIC or on his own. C) For that the dealing CPIO ought to have sought the assistance of Shri Vijai Sharma also if so required. D) For that the CPIO ought to have sought assistance of competent NIC officers if Shri Vijai Sharma is/was uncooperative. E) For that the Pr.Sec (Retd) Pritam Chand has merely stated that information is not with him personally. F) For that the requested information exists and is required to be maintained under the various DOPT Manual of Office procedures and to be disclosed to RTI applicants. G) For the requested information also concerns the allegations of corruption against Shri Vijai Sharma for which Appellant has registered complaints against him, in larger public interest, and the Secretary of CIC to DOPT and PMO via the Public Grievance Portal. H) For that the Appellant, having come to know of a criminal conspiracy to lose or destroy the requested information, had taken precaution of informing the Registrar CIC (duly diarised in CIC Central Registry) in writing, and while Mr. Vijai Sharma was still in office, that the information now sought ought to be properly handed over by Shri Vijai Sharma or his office before Mr Vijai Sharma demitted office as Chief Information Commissioner. I) For that it appears that Mr. Vijai Sharma or his office have actually suppressed, destroyed, stolen or lost the requested information, which is a corrupt act with criminal implications for which a pucca FIR ought to be registered immediately by CICs HEAD OF DEPARTMENT. J) For that a thorough inquiry requires to be ordered by HEAD OF DEPARTMENT to establish the fate of the requested information and all the officers responsible for dealing and maintaining it. K) For that the Pensions and other post service benefits of Shri Vijai Sharma and Shri Pritam Chand deserve to be stopped till information is provided. PRAYERS: 1) That all the requested information may be personally traced out by CPIO and directed to be provided to applicant immediately and thereafter free of cost if not provided in 30 days. 2) That otherwise an opportunity of personal hearing be given to Appellant with at least 7 days prior notice.
Not Available
605 Ramamurthy V S CICOM/A/2016/00001
Incomplete Information
606 Dr Terence Nazareth CICOM/A/2016/00002
Incomplete Information
607 Hans Raj Chugh CICOM/A/2016/00004
Incomplete Information
608 M Veera Reddy CICOM/A/2016/00007
Incomplete Information
609 Rafik Dawud Kara Memoh CICOM/A/2016/00019
Incomplete Information
610 M Danasegar CICOM/A/2016/00021
No Response
611 Amar Jeet CICOM/A/2016/00023
Incomplete Information
612 Ravi Saraswat CICOM/A/2016/00035
Incomplete Information
613 Sanjiv Chaturvedi CICOM/A/2016/00037
Incomplete Information
614 Gopi Chand Sedha CICOM/A/2016/00061
see the file
615 Charanjit Singh B CICOM/A/2016/00064
No Response
616 Dori Lal CICOM/A/2016/00066
Incomplete Information
617 ujjal Kumar Datta CICOM/A/2016/00071
No Response
618 R K Jain CICOM/A/2016/00078
No Response
619 R K Jain CICOM/A/2016/00095
Incomplete Information
620 Pradeep Dutta CICOM/A/2016/00112
No Response
621 Ishwar Chandra Gupta CICOM/A/2016/00118
No Response
622 R K Jain CICOM/A/2016/00128
Incomplete Information
623 J V Gopal CICOM/A/2016/00130
Incomplete Information
624 Mahendra Tyagi CICOM/A/2016/00145
No Response
625 R K Jain CICOM/A/2016/00146
NO Response
626 Sohan Lal Varshney CICOM/A/2015/00338
Incomplete Information
627 J D Singh CICOM/A/2015/00364
Incomplete Information
628 Jaswant Singh Soni CICOM/A/2015/00403
Incomplete Information
629 S C Garg CICOM/A/2015/00407
No Response
630 S C Garg CICOM/A/2015/00408
Incomplete Information
631 S C Garg CICOM/A/2015/00409
Incomplete Information
632 Rakesh Kumar Gupta CICOM/A/2015/00410
Incomplete Information
633 R P Gupta CICOM/A/2015/00419
Incomplete Iformation
634 J D Singh CICOM/A/2015/00428
Incomplete information
635 Praveen Chandra Shah CICOM/A/2015/00444
Incomplete Information
636 J D Singh CICOM/A/2015/00449
Any other ground
637 Prem Raj CICOM/A/2015/00450
Incomplete Information
638 Prem Raj CICOM/A/2015/00451
Incomplete Information
639 Ashok Kumar CICOM/A/2015/00465
Incomplete Information
640 J D Singh CICOM/A/2015/00475
Incomplete Information
641 Mohammed Rafi CICOM/A/2015/00478
incomplete iformation
642 Mohd Shajid CICOM/A/2016/00011
Incomplete Information
643 Akash Pandey CICOM/A/2016/00012
Return to Appellate
644 Deepchandra Sharma CICOM/A/2016/00015
Incomplete Information
645 Surendra Singh CICOM/A/2016/00016
Incomplete Information
646 G S Gupta CICOM/A/2016/00018
Incomplete Information
647 Mounesh Podder CICOM/A/2016/00020
Incomplete Information
648 J C Kohli CICOM/A/2016/00029
Incomplete Information
649 Md Zainul CICOM/A/2016/00032
Incomplete Information
650 Prem Chand CICOM/A/2016/00033
Incomplete Information
651 Nikhil Kumar Singh CICOM/A/2016/00039
Incomplete Information
652 Ajay Dubey CICOM/A/2016/00041
Incomplete Information
653 Prateek Shukla CICOM/A/2016/00042
Incomplete Information
654 Gunjan Kumar CICOM/A/2016/00043
Incomplete Information
655 Praveen Sakhuja CICOM/A/2016/00087
Incomplete Information
656 Praveen Sakhuja CICOM/A/2016/00088
Incomplete Information
657 Praveen Sakhuja CICOM/A/2016/00089
Incomplete Information
658 Praveen Sakhuja CICOM/A/2016/00090
Incomplete Information
659 R K Srivastava CICOM/A/2016/00091
Incomplete Information
660 Kumar Vivek CICOM/A/2016/00092
Incomplete Information
661 Yogesh Malhotra CICOM/A/2016/00108
Incomplete Information
662 Ishwar Sharan Katarha CICOM/A/2016/00113
Incomplete Information
663 Ishwar Chandra Gupta CICOM/A/2016/00117
No Response
664 Gopal Chandra CICOM/A/2016/00129
Incomplete Information
665 Mangla Kan CICOM/A/2016/00131
Incomplete Information
666 N Saini CICOM/A/2016/00135
Incomplete Informatin
667 H Hanume Gowda CICOM/A/2016/00156
Incomplete Information
The is a second appeal. It has been registered as first appeal inadvertently. Hence no action is taken.
668 Harish Kumar CICOM/A/2016/00169
No Response
669 S.S. CHAWLA CICOM/A/2016/60001
Appellant had sought the certified copies of CPIO letter dated 09.01.2015 and FAA letter dated 09.05.2015 in term of the Honble Commission decision dated 25.06.2015. After seeking the certified copies by appellant from the CPIO, CIC, the corrigendum dated 15.12.2015 was issued by Shri Krishan Avtar Talwar, Deputy Registrar, CIC whereas he stated that in place of 09.05.2015 it may kindly be read as 16.04.2015 in the Commission decision dated 25.06.2015. Now, the Deputy Secretary & CPIO, CIC had furnished the certified copies in his letter dated 28.12.2015 whereas letter dated 09.01.2015 is showing disposal of appeal by the FAA, MoUD and letter dated 16.04.2015 is showing the disposal of RTI application by the CPIO, MoUD. Therefore, copies furnished by the CPIO, CIC is completely contradiction in terms of CIC decision dated 25.06.2015. I would like to draw kind attention of FAA, CIC that the Commissions order says that first RTI application disposed of by the CPIO on 09.01.2015 then FA disposed of by FAA on 16.04.2015 (as per corrigendum ) but certified copies furnished by the CPIO, CIC says that first FA disposed of by FAA on 09.01.2015 then RTI application disposed of by CPIO on 16.04.2015. All relevant copies are already available with the Commission, hence, copies furnished by the CPIO, CIC is not being uploaded, however, if any clarification is require, please contact on mobile number. In view of , the FAA, CIC kindly look into the matter and direct to CPIO to furnish the information in transparently as sought by the appellant in his RTI application dated 27.11.2015 in term of Commission order dated 25.06.2015.
Not Available
Sh Krishan Avtar Talwar CPIO cum DO to IC KY is directed to revisit the concerned case file and furnish factual information or document if any to the appellant within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
670 Ashutosh Bansal CICOM/A/2016/60002
With Reference to Point 1 ( SA/UG/15/18417n2do) you said that this does not seems to be received, whereas I would like to say that this has been send to you by Speed Post Number- ED647548771IN With reference to Point Ni 5 & 6 ( SA/UG/15/18132x21l and SA/UG/15/18131pnndMr ) had been sent to you by Indian Speed Post- ED679684433IN . So now please tell me the Status
Not Available
CPIO cum DR in Central Registry is directed to intimate the present status of the letters as mentioned by the appellant in the first appeal within 5 days from the date of receipt of this order.
671 Dr. Vidyanand Thakur CICOM/A/2016/60003
Contention of appeal, 1.That, I have not asked to furnish the Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005, rather I have asked for the 4 corners of Section 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005 on the basis of which the IC, CIC, the highest body under RTI Act 2005 pronounced such irrational decision dated 14.10.2015 in File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/ 000924/KY since, What is there in public domain in section2 (f) of RTI Act, 2005 is the definition of information where the requested information as proposal of M/o Mines does come within the meaning of information. 2.That, the public authority is NOT allowed to furnish the information by interpretation of facts but the IC, CIC Shri MA Khan Yusuphi has upheld the reply of CPIO, DPE in Non-document form by creating information/ interpreting facts in reply of DPENT/R/2014/60034 that other benefits in DPEs O.M. dated 1.6.2011 refers to all benefits linked to basic pay without application of mind in its decision pronounced vide File No. CIC/SH/A/ 2014/ 002234/KY which is facts wise arbitrary too since, (i)when the JS, DPE & FAA itself, in this case, has admitted that the DPEs O.M. dated 1.6.2011 does not define other benefits as well as, (ii)when the observation of the anomalies committee regarding its consideration part of NPA as Pay in 1997 pay revision is FALSE vide NALCOs O.M. dated 03.08.2001 itself, Then even a BLIND person cannot say that the said other benefits refers to ALL BENEFITS LINKED TO BASIC PAY but which has been UPHELD by the learned IC, CIC, Shri. M A Khan Yusufi and lastly, (iii)In view of decision in File No.CIC/SH/A/2014/902903/KY upholding the view of CPIO, DPE vide its reply against DPENT/R/2014/60344 that the DPE did not receive any proposal of M/o Mines, This issue of NPA is deemed to be considered illegally by the DPE as prescribed under Para 18 of DPEs own O.M. dated 26.11.2008 and, In that case of such illegal consideration, when any decision, as such, in DPEs O.M. dated 1.6.2011 cannot be a legal decision then even the honorable court of law may not uphold SUCH views of CPIO, DPE but which has been irrationally done so by the IC, CIC in its decision in File No. CIC/SH/A/ 2014/002234 and, Which appears to be rather a fixed/preoccupied view of IC, CIC like a fixed cricket match where the victory does not show the actual /real ability of players/team. In this purview, is obvious that the decision pronounced in File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002234 /KY is CONTRADITORY to those in File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/902903/KY, CIC/SH/A/2015/000263/KY&CIC/SH/A/2015/000924/KY. relief sought, Please give necessary direction to the CPIO, CIC to furnish me the name of 4 corners of section 2(f) of RTI act 2005, the 4 ground for refusal of information which has been quoted in Para 2 of decision of the IC, CIC dated 14.10.2015 vide File No. CIC/SH/A/2015/ 000924/KY since this information itself will show the mirror to said IC, CIC in its decision pronounced vide File No. CIC/SH/A/ 2014/ 002234/KY.
The CPIO can furnish the information which is available on record. The CPIO has rightly responded as the information regarding the RTI Act is available in the public domain. Regarding the decision of the Commission CPIO or the FAA of the Commission cannot comment on the quasi judiciary orders passed by the Commission.
672 sai aditya karampudi CICOM/A/2016/60004
I NEVER EXPECTED THIS KIND OF FALSE INFORMATION FROM CIC. I HAVE ATTACHED THE DOCUMENT WHICH WAS UPLOADED IN RTI PORTAL FOR MY REQUEST. KINDLY CHECK THAT FALSE INFORMATION GIVEN CIC. IS THIS THE WAY CIC RESPOND TO RTI REQUEST. HOW IRRESPONSIBLE IT IS. AT LEAST THIS TIME KINDLY PROVIDE ME GENUINE INFORMATION. THANKS.
The CPIO RTI Cell intimated that the reply of some other RTI applicant has wrongly uploaded in the reply but the reply has already been sent to the appellant vide letter dated 11.01.2016 by the CPIO RTI Cell intimating that his RTI application has been forwarded physically to the concerned CPIO cum DR in Central Registry for providing you information directly. CPIO cum DR in Central Registry is directed to provide the information as sought in his RTI application within 5 days from the date of receipt of this order.
673 abhinav matolia CICOM/A/2016/60006
CPIO has not provided the desired information within the time limit prescribed in the RTI act, 2005. Please instruct the CPIO to provide information at the earliest & refund me the fee paid.
Not Available
The CPIO DR to IC MP Shri T K Mohapatra is directed to make efforts to trace out the file and furnish the information sought for by the appellant within a month of the receipt of the order.
674 Abhinav Matolia CICOM/A/2016/60007
in above mentioned RTI application, i asked for information related to hearing held at CIC on 03-12-2015(as this information is not available on CIC website). CPIO denied the information stating that he has not received back the concerned file. As the above subject matter is related to concerned CPIO, his reply is not suitable. He should have made request to the concerned authority to provide him the case file and furnished the information desired.Please instruct the CPIO to do the needful & provide me the information desired.
Direction is given to Shri T K Mohapatra CPIO cum DR to IC MP to intimate the present status and provide the document as sought for by the appellant within one week from the date of receipt of this order.
675 Dhiren Borpatra Gohain CICOM/A/2016/00038
Incomplete Information
676 Yogesh Sharma CICOM/A/2016/00048
Incomplete Information
677 Girja Devi CICOM/A/2016/00050
Incomplete Information
678 J K Gupta CICOM/A/2016/00051
Incomplete Information
679 Girish Prasad Gupta CICOM/A/2016/00063
Incomplete Information
680 Param Jit Singh Marwah CICOM/A/2016/00149
Incomplete Information
681 Param Jit Singh Marwah CICOM/A/2016/00150
Incomplete Information
682 P S Marwah CICOM/A/2016/00151
Incomplete Information
683 P S Marwah CICOM/A/2016/00152
Incomplete Information
684 Paramjit Singh Marwah CICOM/A/2016/00153
Incomplete Information
685 H Abdul Hadi CICOM/A/2016/00159
Incomplete Information
686 Ranadheer Beeravelli CICOM/A/2016/60009
There is no response in the specified time limit from the department in providing the information, kindly look into the issue and provide the information as soon as possible. Thank you
Not Available
The appellant has alleged that he has not received the response of his RTI application. However, it is seen that Shri S K Rabbani, DS(Admi) cum CPIO has responded on Point No.1 vide his letter dated 06.04.2016. Point 5 of the RTI application is concerned to DoPT, therefore, direction is accordingly given to Shri Y K Singhal, JS cum CPIO, RTI Cell to transfer the said point to the DoPT under Section 6(3) within 5 days from the date of receipt of the order.
687 Ranadheer Beeravelli CICOM/A/2016/60010
There is no response available for the information asked as per RTI act, kindly look into the issue and provide the information as soon as possible, at lease this delay is not expected from CIC. Thank you
Not Available
The appellant has alleged that he has not received any response of his RTI application. However, it is seen that the reply has been furnished by the CPIOs of the Commission. On Point No.1, Shri S K Rabbani, DS(Admin) cum CPIO has replied vide letter dated 05.04.16, on Points 2 & 3, Shri A K Gehlot, JS(MoRe) has replied vide letter dated 08.12.15 and on Point 4, Shri Y K Singhal, JS(Law) replied vide letter dated 12.02.16. The Point No.5 is concerned with the DoPT, therefore, direction is given to Shri Y K Singhal, JS cum CPIO, RTI Cell to transfer this point under Section 6(1) to the DoPT within 5 days from the date of receipt of the order.
688 Vasantha Dorai Raj CICOM/A/2016/60011
1.The Commissions order dated 15-09-2015 says: Appellant : Absent it does not refer to her written submission dated 02-09-2015 implying that the proceedings were held ex parte against the appellant. In order to remove such an inference, reasons why no mention has been made in the order about the written submission need be disclosed. 2.The CPIO denies receipt of the letter dated 12.11.2015. The appellants letter dated 12-11-2015 was 1) addressed to Shri Prakash, Dy. Registrar, 2) sent by registered post, and 3) duly delivered to the addressee on 16-11-2015. The attachment will bear testimony. 3.The said letter was sent to the CPIO as an attachment to the RTI request. The CPIO has simply denied receipt of the letter. Whether this letter will now be considered by the Commission or what the procedure is has not been spelt out. 4.The appellants written submission dated 02-09-15 and letter dated 12-11-15 may be taken on record, dealt with and justice done.
The reply given by the CPIO is found in order and which is based on the records available with him. There is nothing to intervene in the reply of the CPIO
689 ANAND TEMBULKAR CICOM/A/2016/60013
kindly refer to my RTI Request which was submitted to the PIO as follows: You are requested to kindly: 1. provide the inspection of the file no. CIC/CC/A/2015/903714 2. send me the certified copy of the index of the documents referred to in the appeal no. SA/UG/15/3551ur8o refiled on 12/05/2015 vide diary no. 130917 Thanking you in response to the above RTI request he sent a letter dated 18.12.2015 giving following reply 1. As per Receipt Management system, your appeal diarized vide dy. no. 130917/2015 has been registered vide case file no. CIC/CC/A/2015/903714 and the case is pending for hearing with IC(SA). WHILE THE RTI REQUEST WAS FOR THE INSPECTION OF THE FILE. for the second request he gave no reply WHILE THE RTI REQUEST WAS FOR SENDING THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE INDEX OF THE DOCUMENTS. The PIO marked at the bottom of the letter as follows: Copy to : DO to IC(SA) : For providing the information directly to the applicant. (Copy of RTI is enclosed). TILL NOW NO INFORMATION AS REQUESTED IN THE RTI APPLICATION HAS COME TO ME i.e., inspection of the file and the requested certified copy of the document. So you are requested to kindly direct the PIO accordingly. Thanking you.
In the RTI application the Appellant has requested for inspection of F.No.CIC CC A 2015 903714 but the CPIO concerned i.e. DO to IC SA has not replied to the appellant. Shri Babu Lal, DO to IC (SA) is directed to furnish reply on the point No.1 and 2 to the appellant within two weeks of the receipt of this order
690 dr m b singh CICOM/A/2016/60016
as per RTI ACT 2005 the PIO coming under CIC should be called as CPIO & those under STATE GOVT. should be called as SPIO but PIO at HIGH COURT, ALD designate as CPIO, so the controversy arose.I tried to get it clarified through RTI by letter dated 5/11/15 but was refused by PIO,HIGH COURT vide letter dated 21dec.15
In the RTI application the appellant want to know the second Appellate Authority in respect of the RTI applications filed in the High Court of Allahabad. The CPIO, Joint Secretary (Law) has replied the applicant to refer RTI Act, 2005, which is already in public domain but he has not mentioned the proper authority for the 2nd appeal. The CIC is the 2nd Appellate Authority in respect of the High Court as a Public Authority under the RTI Act, 2005
691 yogesh CICOM/A/2016/60017
As the PIO failed to provide the any information with in 30 days from the receipts of my RTI application , therefore all the information may be provided under section 7(6) of RTI Act-2005
Not Available
In the first appeal the appellant has complained that the PIO has failed to reply RTI application within 30 days. There is nothing to intervene in the reply of the CPIO. The CPIO RTI Cell has transferred RTI application to DoPT for replying point no. 1,2, 4 and on point No.3 the CPIO, J.S (Law) has intimated that the information has not held in this Commission.
692 SUKANT MISRA CICOM/A/2016/60018
Furnish all details as to why my name online in ELECTION COMMISSION website is not as in my application form 1)ACCOUNT 12 PART 77 SERIAL 762 2)MY NAME, DATE OF BIRTH, FATHER NAME IN SERIAL 1355 in GRADUATE ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY BHUSAWAL ARE NOT AS IN MY APPLICATION FORM
693 M K Gandhi CICOM/A/2016/60019
Cpio not supplied the complete informations as requested in my application. Direct cpio to provide pointwise informations with circulars in this regards issued with updation. Mere directing me by cpio to refer the site is not solve the same informations as requested. Pl. direct the cpio accirdingly pointwise reply.
Not Available
The applicant has asked for guidelines/instructions/circulars etc. issued by the DoPT and CIC to all government offices for keeping office records under the Act. The CPIO RTI Cell has transferred the RTI application to the DoPT as the information sought for relates to DoPT. He has informed that the information as far as CIC is concerned is already in public domain and asked to see the CIC website i.e. www.cic.gov.in. There is nothing to reply by the CPIO as all the circulars/instructions are available in the CIC website.
694 Mitesh CICOM/A/2016/60020
Its more than 45 Days, yet no answer given. Time limit is of 30 days. request to please provide the information, as soon as possible
Not Available
The CPIO, Central Registry has already provided information in respect of point no.1,2, 3, 6 and 7. The CPIO Shri A.K. Gehlot,Joint Secretary (MMR) has already provided information concerning the other points. On point No.5 the applicant wants to know the time to resolve appeal filed prior to 2009/2010. This information has noit held by any the CPIOs and also there is nothing on record on this.
695 BANDARAKALL A S CICOM/A/2016/60023
Information held under Control of CIC by State Government Ministry_Department by Central related Service Matter and Dispose on this act to Public authority with Instruction on Considering THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT 2005 No 22 of 2005 15th June 2005 An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. WHEREAS the Constitution of India has established democratic Republic It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmi 1) Information had being Decission under this Controll of CIC related Ministary_Department of Central office filde recorde Done with instruction by State authority pertain Information officer of Karnataka 2) Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioner mean the Chief Information Commissioner and Information Commissioner appointed under sub-section (3) of section 12 3) (4) The general superintendence, direction and management of the affairs of the Central Information Commission shall vest in the Chief Information Commissioner who shall be assisted by the Information Commissioners and may exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things which may be exercised or done by the Central Information Commission autonomously without being subjected to directions by any other authority under this Ac 1) Has being request for information via in this act 19(8)(a)(i) Decision of Information in this act Opnion for Censure Aginest Rti act-05 (21) 2) Your are requested act 4(d) Reason of Refusing by SIC against action to the authority Which had being Breach of act by Locally_District authority of Gadag Karnataka 3) All authenticty and Confirmation in application attachment pg cases Which had Dispose of Central CPIO_APP held to the Public authority of State under act 2005 In view act Belongs information Specifically Related State authority service bond in this act
In the RTI application the appellant refers to the decisions/matters to the State Information Commissions and public authorities of the State Government. The CPIO RTI Cell has replied the appellant to approach the concerned State Authority as the information is not held in his office. There is nothing to intervene in the reply of the CPIO. It is to be mentioned that the Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions have separate and distinct jurisdiction. The CIC is the second Appellate Authority in respect of public authorities under the Central Government and union territories whereas the State Information Commissions are the second Appellate Authority under the RTI Act in respect of the public authorities under the concerned state governments
696 Amit Kr CICOM/A/2016/60025
respected sir / madam, I filed a RTI Application to CIC on 08/01/2016 which was transferred to two CPIOs . I have neither received any acknowledgement nor any reply of application till date from any PIO As I filed my application Online with a Govt. portal to filing RTI applications, I am not responsible for any delay of application as Indian Postal Service is not included in it. 1. Kindly direct all CPIOs to provide me the best information as per my queries free of cost u/s 7(6) of the act as soon as possible. 2. Kindly also inform me that even after issuing many warnings to PIOs, Why they do not reply in time and violate the provisions of act. 3. What actions you are going to take on PIOs for this delay.
Not Available
The reply to point No.1,2, 3 and 6 has been provided by the CPIO, Joint Secretary (MR). The CPIO, JS (Law) is directed to provide information in respect of the other points i.e. point No. 4 and 5 (on penalty matters) within two weeks of the receipt of this order
697 Anthony Da Piedade Fernandes CICOM/A/2016/60026
I am not able to download the files in public domain and hence asked for soft copy which you have with you. Therefore, rejecting my access to information is not valid.
Not Available
The CPIO, Central Registry has already provided information in respect of point no.1,2, 3, 6 and 7. The CPIO Shri A.K. Gehlot,Joint Secretary (MMR) has already provided information concerning the other points. On point No.5 the applicant wants to know the time to resolve appeal filed prior to 2009/2010. This information has noit held by any the CPIOs and also there is nothing on record on this.
698 PRANAB KUMAR SARKAR CICOM/A/2016/60027
AS DESIRED BY THE APPLICANT REQUIRED INFORMATION WAS NOT FURNISHED BY THE CPIO i.e. INFORMATION OF SERIAL NO 2,3,4,5 AS DESIRED IN THE RTI APPLICATION WAS NOT FURNISHED.
Not Available
The information respect of point No.1, concerning CIC, has already been provided by Shri Dinesh Kumar, CPIO, Central Registry. The other point do not seems to be concerned with the CIC. It seems that he is asking information in respect of RTI applications/first appeals with some other public authorities. If those RTI applications/first appeals as mentioned in point No.2 and 5 are filed with the CIC, copies of those letters may be sent to the CPIO, RTI Cell to intimate you the status.
699 J P SHAH CICOM/A/2016/60028
Please refer attachment
In the RTI application the appellant sought information regarding the receipt of the judgement dated 15.10.2014 of the Delhi High Court in the Commission and the date-wise action taken on that and other related information. The CPIO, J.S (Law) has replied “Information is not held in this office”. J.S (Law) being in-charge of the Legal Cell of this Commission is the concerned officer for taking action/forwarding the judgement received in the Commission to the concerned Bench for action, if any. He is directed to provide the detailed information on this to the applicant and if required to take the assistance of other officer(s)/concerned Sections, within 2 weeks of the receipt of this order.
700 S Dorai Raj CICOM/A/2016/60029
The CPIO has provided incomplete information. He says he has forwarded the RTI request to another PIO from whom I have not received any response. It appears the registry is in a shambles in CIC. I sent the signed copies of the appeals and complaints in question by registered post, vide receipt No. RT460507348iN (attached) on 30-12-2015 incurring an amount of Rs.47/-. It is for the officials concerned to trace the signed copies and update the status on the CIC portal. The appellant and complainants should not be made to suffer. In fact, the registered letter containing all the signed copies with all enclosures was addressed to Sh. Roshan Lal Gupta, Dy. Registrar in his personal name. I had also submitted the proof of deliver of this registered letter along with the RTI application. Please ensure that the status of the appeals and complaints is updated immediately.
In the RTI application the appellant has sought information regarding the status of the 7 online 2nd appeals/complaints. The CPIO, Central Registry has intimated to the appellant that the registration of only two online second appeals having file Nos. CIC/BS/C/2016/900059 and CIC/BS/C/2016/900042. The CPIO of Central Registry is directed to intimate the status of the other online petitions within two weeks of the receipt of this order. The appellant has mentioned that he has already sent signed copies of the appeals and complaints through registered post on 30.12.2015
701 Waliur Rahman CICOM/A/2016/60030
Sub : First Appeal against not receiving the information under RTI Act, 2005 under Section 19 (1), regarding the Voter Identity Card details of Huraiya Nahar, W/O. Mahmudar Rahman, Vill. Gurdaha Paschim Para, P.O. & P.S. Baduria, Dist. North 24 Parganas. (West Bengal) PIN -743401 from the Voter List during the period of 1977 to 1992 and from the Voter Identity Card issued by Election Commission of India during the period of 1993 to 1999. Sir / Madam, With reference to the above & my petition to your honour, Registration No. CICOM/R/2016/50043 dated 24.01.16, I may bring to your kind notice that I have not yet received the information applied for till this day. I, therefore, earnestly request your honour to expedite your necessary action regarding the aforesaid matter most urgently and oblige.
Not Available
The CPIO RTI Cell has intimated that the RTI application has been transferred to the CPIO i.e. Election Commission of India, u/s. 6(3) of the RTI Act vide letter dated 28.01.2016 (copy enclosed) as the subject matter of the RTI application concerned to the Election Commission of India. You may take up the matter with the Election Commission of India
702 ANISHA CHOPRA CICOM/A/2016/60031
the information sought by me vide my application dated 01/02/2016 are not provided properly. such as S.No. 2 Please inform me no. of applicants who posses bachelor degree only and nos. of candidates who posses master degree in law information given - as per record data is not maintained in this type S.No. 3 What was the criteria for short listing of candidates called for interview. information given - as per notice no. 5/1/2012-Admn.CIC dt. 18/11/2015. It is available on the CIC website www.cic.gov.in where as i want the information what was the criteria to short list out of 864 candidates who applied for the post that is not available on website. S.No. 4 How many candidates were called for interview and qualification & percentage of marks of the last candidate called. information given - 400 candidates shortlisted for interview for the post of legal consultants in CIC. The information given is incomplete S.No. 5 Please provide me list of the selected candidates with their date of birth, qualification acquired and experience if any. information given - 13 candidates are selected for the post of legal consultant. The information given is incomplete
The CPIO has already provided point-wise information. There is nothing to intervene in the matter. Regarding date of birth, qualification/experience of the candidates are third party information that which cannot be provided.
703 vipin kumar CICOM/A/2016/60032
Query 1: Names along with contact details of the person/team responsible for updating CIC Online website. Answer Provided: CIC website is being maintained by NIC team. Sh Rakesh Malik is in charge of NIC in CIC. Problem with the answer: Incomplete information provided. The contact details (email, phone number or postal address) have not been provided. The contact details of NIC or its team leader are not present on the website of CIC Online either. Query 2: The exact web address giving the necessary information for sending the signed copy of the Second Appeal to CIC. Answer Provided: There is no web address for online receipt of signed copy of Appeals/ Complaints. You are requested to send hard copy of Appeal/ Complaint. Problem with the answer: Question not properly answered. CIC Online is an online website for filing second appeal under RTI Act, 2005. As such, CIC Online website should have a web page mentioning the necessary steps that have to be taken by the applicant after that second appeal is filed on the CIC Online website. However, after filing the second appeal, all it shows is - signed copy awaited. Which documents have to be sent and where, it is not stated anywhere on the CIC Online website. I am asking for the web address of the relevant web page, if its available on the CIC Online website. This is because, Initial Application, First Appeal and Second Appeal, and the response provided by the CPIO and The First Appellate Authority, these are all separate documents. Whether all these documents have to be sent or not, it is not clear. Through this query, I was expecting the address of the webpage where the information may be given.
Not Available
In the appeal the appellant has stated that he has not replied complete information on point No.1, the CPIO has not given the e-mail, telephone number, address of Shri Rakesh Malik, in-charge of NIC in CIC. On point No.2 the appellant has complained that there is no web page in the CIC online mentioning the necessary steps to be taken by the applicant after the second appeal in CIC online web-site and also there is no mention of which document has to be sent and where to send it. He is requesting to intimate him the address of the web page/web address. The CPIO, Shri A.K. Gehlot, JS (MR) is directed to intimate the details within two weeks of the receipt of this order.
704 Raghavendra Rao Prerepa CICOM/A/2016/60033
Sir, in the reply provided by the CPIO, i did not found any course of action except recording in the receipt management system by allotting a serial number to my second appeal. Hence, I request you please provide the information regarding what course of action (i.e., under scrutiny, final-decision about to be declared, undergoing due-diligence, etc.,) has been taken / is being taken about my second appeal. Please do the needful at the earliest.
The CPIO has already replied to the appellant regarding the status of the 2nd appeal. The appellant can check the status from time to time on the CIC website i.e. www.cic.gov.in
705 Arif Md Yeasin Jwadder CICOM/A/2016/60034
The First Appellate Authority Central Information Commission 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan Bhikaji Cama Place New Delhi- 110066 Subject: - (First appeal under RTI Act) Please refer to my RTI application dated 18.01.2016 registered vide CICOM/R/2016/50032/1. I in my RTI application asked for the information as to why my Second Appeals/Direct Complaint has not been listed for hearing so far which dates back from the year 2014. The CPIO has merely stated that the case files have already been transferred to the registry of IC(SA) for further action. He did not provide me the information sought nor forward the application to other public authority if the information is not available with him. I therefore appeal under section (19)(1) of RTI Act that my application may be disposed of to provide me with the requisite information and with the instruction to CPIO that in future CPIO will keep the spirit of RTI Act alive. Otherwise I will be compelled to proceed to CIC in a second appeal. Sd/- (Arif Md Yeasin Jwadder) A 137, Second Floor Gautam Nagar Road Gautam Nagar New Delhi- 110049 Mobile- 9759925719
Not Available
The CPIO to DO to IC (SA) is directed to intimate the present status of the 2nd appeal as mentioned in his RTI application within two weeks time of receipt of this order.
706 GULSHAN KUMAR KHURANA CICOM/A/2016/60038
The following is the text of my online rti application dated 15.3.2016 addressed to CPIO CIC New Delhi which was registered as CICOM/R/2016/50123 I sent a complaint to Central Commission Office on 28.1.2015 which was registered as file no. CIC/BS/A/2015/000248. Notice of hearing dated 15.2.2016 was received by me on 1st Mar 2016 after seven days of date of listing of the case i.e. 25.2.2016. Hence I could not participate in the hearing on 25.2.2016 while respondent did appear. The following information is required under RTI Act 1 Which are the pending cases I.e complaints and 2nd appeals are reflected in the online cause list of Commission. 2 Why the file no. CIC/BS/A/2015/000248 which was listed for hearing on 25.2.2016 was not reflected in the online cause list of the Commission. 3 How the communication (notice of hearing) was sent to the respondent in file no. CIC/BS/A/2015/000248. Whether it was sent by email or by registered/speed post. 4 If it was sent by speed/registered post, whether any receipt/number of the same is obtained from Post Office. If Yes Provide me the copy of the receipt/number of Post Office from where speed/registered post was sent. 5 If the communication (notice of hearing) was sent, to the respondent in file no. CIC/BS/A/2015/000248, by email, why the appellant not informed by email. I am aggrieved by the reply of the CPIO which is mentioned as follows 1.CPIO has stated that the Cause list dated 25/02/2016 is not available on the CIC website because the cause list for future dates can only be seen on the website and not for the past dates. While it is not the case. Even if I today want to see the cause list of 9.2.2016 it is reflected in the causelist of the website. CPIO has also not stated on which date it was uploaded in the cause list that the case is listed for 25.2.2016 and not stated how many days before the date of hearing it is reflected in the cause list. 2. CPIO has not stated when the dealing hand listed in the cause list of the CIC website. How many days before the date of hearing it was reflected in the cause list. 3. I have asked for when the notice of hearing of the appeal fixed for 25/02/2016 was duly sent to the RESPONDENT but the CPIO has stated that the notice of hearing was sent to the appellant on 15.2.2016. 4. The speed post number ED846759823IN dated 15/02/2016 booked from JNU Post Office New Delhi 110067 is MEANT FOR APPELLANT. While I have asked for the speed post number which was sent to RESPONDENT. Please provide the copy of the speed post number.
Not Available
The CPIO, DO to IC (BS) has already been provided point-wise information. However, on point No. 1, the CPIO, DO to IC (BS) is directed to take assistance of NIC in getting copies of cause list dated 25th February, 2016 and provided to the appellant within two weeks of the receipt of this order
707 Brijesh Kumar Shukla CICOM/A/2015/00189
incomplete information
708 Mahesh Kumar Chauhan CICOM/A/2015/00285
Incomplete Information
709 Dr. Rashmi Bhardwaj CICOM/A/2015/00287
incomplete information
710 R Thangaraju CICOM/A/2015/00306
Incomplete Information
711 H K Bansal CICOM/A/2015/00331
Incomplete Information