2/16/2017 RTI Online :: Online RTI Information System
https://rtionline.gov.in/request/listActionStatus.php?action=3HxZPWXzIfxl866Ei7Pkn480FK1tiCmdW3LHObS1YRg%3D&&code=1cFjVr1EDFcUMuvtm9c… 1/1
Final Status of CICOM/A/2017/60014
Applicant Name OM PRAKASH
Date of receipt 27/01/2017
Request Filed With Central Informa뼔�on Commission
Text of Applica뼔�on
DETAIL FIRST APPEAL HAS BEEN ATTACHED WITH 7 PAGES AND THESAME HAS BEEN EMAILED TO rk dot mathur53 at gov dot in on 24 012017
I regret that CPIO RTI Cell CIC New Delhi has supplied the informa뼔�onincomplete misleading false and unsa뼔�sfactorily so that either you cangive it or else you can order him to supply the same sa뼔�sfactorily orsupply the same as per the rules under RTI Act 2005 My point wiseaverments and arguments are as under
The cita뼔�on of Act and subsequent reply by DS CR depicts ABSOLUTEMISMATCH and the same depicts viola뼔�on of RULE OF LAW
The cita뼔�on of PERUSAL OF RECORDS absolutely violates sec뼔�on 11 iiprocedure for deciding appeals of RTI Rules 2012
Arguments with cita뼔�on under reply no 1 and 2 to be read as theargument under reply no 03 which clearly indicates that the reply bythe DS CR of Central Informa뼔�on Commission is NOT IN ORDER AT ALL
Hence the Apex ins뼔�tu뼔�on is shielding protec뼔�ng the BAD ELEMENTSof State Apparatus and offending harassing vic뼔�mizing the commonman and senior ci뼔�zen oxygen dependent woman
The informa뼔�on supplied is absolutely false and protec뼔�ng the badelements of state apparatus Hence true informa뼔�on to be supplied inaccordance with RTI Act 2005 and RTI Rules 2012 with appropriatepuni뼔�ve ac뼔�on
Request document (if any)Status APPEAL DISPOSED OF as on 30/01/2017
Date of Ac뼔�on 30/01/2017
Remarks
Reply :‐ On perusal of the RTI applica뼔�on, reply of the CPIO andthe first appeal, it is observed that appellant has soughtinforma뼔�on on Point 1 "Can CIC afford to say...... dated28.12.2016" and Point 2 "Is reply of the DS CR........to each other."As per RTI Act only such informa뼔�on can be supplied under theAct which are already exist and is held by the public authority orheld under the control of public authority. The PIO is notsupposed to create informa뼔�on or to interpret informa뼔�on. Theinforma뼔�on sought in Points 1 & 2 above fall under the categoryof interpret/comments, therefore, no interven뼔�on is required bythe FAA.
As regards Point 3 is concerned "What ac뼔�on has been takenagainst DS CR, CIC for non implementa뼔�on of provision of sec뼔�on7......"It is observed that Administra뼔�on has already examined this issueand found the reply given by DS CR in order, therefore, no ac뼔�onhas been recommended against him. The same has already beencommunicated to the appellant. Therefore, no interven뼔�on isrequired on the part of the FAA.
