के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग१,मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067 ि(cid:554)तीय अपील संূा / Second Appeal No. (As per Annexure)

Rajnish Ratnakar … अपीलकता१/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO:

Department Of Personnel & Training, …ঋितवादीगण/Respondents New Delhi Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

Sl. No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of Appeal RTI CPIO’s First FAA’s Order Second No. Application Reply Appeal Appeal

1. 658111 28.10.2024 20.11.2024 20.11.2024 26.11.2024 Nil 2. 650952 13.08.2024 12.09.2024 12.09.2024 10.10.2024 Nil 3. 650750 10.08.2024 02.09.2024 02.09.2024 30.09.2024 Nil 4. 650677 12.08.2024 27.08.2024 28.08.2024 11.09.2024 Nil 5. 650427 12.08.2024 21.08.2024 21.08.2024 20.09.2024 Nil The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar RTI Applications and same subject matter.

Date of Hearing: 10.09.2025 Date of Decision: 11.09.2025 CORAM:

Hon’ble Commissioner _ANANDI RAMALINGAM O R D E R Second Appeal No. CIC/DOP&T/A/2024/658111

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 28.10.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1) How many public authorities of central government has obeyed this direction of law of RTI act 2005 issued by department of personnel and training yet.

2) That this guidelines and office memorandum is applicable on public authority of Central Information Commission New Delhi or not

3) That this guidelines is applicable on 2nd appeal documents and complaints filed before CIC or not and CIC is bound to proactively disclose and upload these documents under section 4 of RTI act on their website or not

4) That kindly provide me information that what is the provisions regarding check and control for those public authorities who disobeys the direction of law of RTI act 2005 and not upload all these RTI related documents on their website.

1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 20.11.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

Only such information can be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the Public Authority or held under the control of Public Authority. The PIO is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problems raised by the applicants or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions.

1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 26.11.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.

1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.

Second Appeal No. CIC/DOP&T/A/2024/650952

2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.08.2024 seeking information on the following points:

1) It has been informed me that only 22 states have implemented yet the provisions of filing online RTI application under RTI act 2005. Now kindly provide me information that which are the remaining states who have not implemented yet even after 19 years provisions for filing online RTI application in this nation.

2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 12.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

The respective state governments are responsible for their RTI online portals. Therefore, you are requested to approach the concerned state government. However, States /UTs have been requested, vide this Department D.O. Letters dated 03.12.2013, 07.06.2022 and 16.06.2023 to explore the feasibility of implementation of online RTI and the State Governments who desire to replicate the web portal for online filing of RTI applications at State level, technical support from NIC may be provided. A reminder has also been issued on

29.4.2024.

2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.09.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide orde