A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters
..
A one stop destination for all Right to Information (RTI) matters


Due to the unpreparedness exhibited at hearing, the CIC was compelled to postpone the hearing - CIC: Chief Commissioner of Customs, Delhi Zone is instructed to revisit the provisions of the RTI Act in his jurisdiction & issue directives to the concerned     Right to Information Act 2005    The proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished - CIC: This matter pertains to redressal of grievance that needs to be resolved at an appropriate forum     Right to Information Act 2005    Information pertaining to the selection of applicants for empanelment to take up mineral investigation works allotted by NMET - CIC: The reply by the PIO was an error of judgment with no malafide intention; PIO counselled to be careful in future     Right to Information Act 2005    Detail of municipal laws enacted on the basis of international treaties & conventions ratified by GoI were sought - PIO: Such details are not held exclusively by any public authority and the statutory enactments are in public domain - CIC: Order upheld     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: The RTI application was transferred after 16 days delay excluding the five days mandate as specified under the Act - CIC: The information was provided by PIO after 67 days from the date of receiving the RTI application; Penalty of Rs. 16,750 imposed     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: Even if PIO’s claim of APS, Ramgarh not being a public authority is conceded with, fact remains that the RTI Application is being responded by a public authority and not by APS, Ramgarh; Explaination for non-appearance during the hearing called     Right to Information Act 2005    Vijai Sharma and K V Chowdary appointed as CIC and CVC respectively     Right to Information Act 2005    Is the Mysore Police Commissioner’s office coming up without plan approval?     Right to Information Act 2005    No action taken against the illegal massage parlours or spas in Goa     Right to Information Act 2005    Are there norms about the fee a school should charge and the facilities it offers?     Right to Information Act 2005    There is only 1 primary health centre per 28 villages of UP     Right to Information Act 2005    Services of all OSDs / Consultants terminated by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai     Right to Information Act 2005    Internet Banking OTP should be part of Mandatory SMS and should not be chargeable     Right to Information Act 2005    A critique of the Supreme Court judgment regarding the fee to be charged under the RTI Act     Right to Information Act 2005    Analysis of the Supreme Court Judgment regarding disclosure of Civil Service results by UPSC     Right to Information Act 2005   
FAQ

How should an appellant file the second appeal before the Information Commission?

In respect of Central Information Commission, the procedure to be adopted has been prescribed under the CIC (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005. Similarly, the procedure followed by State Information Commissions is governed by the Rules notified by the respective State Governments in this regard.

An appeal to the CIC should contain the following information:-

(i)  Name and address of the appellant;

(ii) Name and address of the CPIO against the decision of whom the appeal is preferred;

(iii) Particulars of the order including number, if any, against which the appeal is preferred;

(iv) Brief facts leading to the appeal

(v) If the appeal is preferred against deemed refusal, the particulars of the application, including number and date and name and address of the CPIO to whom the application was made;

(vi) Prayer or relief sought;

(vii) Grounds for the prayer or relief;

(viii) Verification by the appellant; and

(ix) Any other information which the Commission may deem necessary for deciding the appeal.

 

An appellant should enclose the following documents with the appeal:-

(i) self-attested copies of the Orders or documents against which the appeal is being preferred;

(ii) copies of documents relied upon by the appellant and referred to in the appeal; and

(iii) an index of the documents referred to in the appeal.