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


CIC: Disclosure of name, designation, official address & official contact details (not father’s name) of serving public officials is not a personal information as it is directly relatable to their public functions; Falls within the mandate of Sec 4(1)(b)     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: Information pertaining to sanctioned, filled and vacant posts in MCD falls u/s 4(1) (b)(i) and (ii) of RTI Act; Is mandatorily required to be disclosed on a suo motu basis; Insistence on charging photocopying fees is not justified; Comply with Sec 4     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: Provide a due opportunity of being heard to the parties while adjudicating the First Appeal; Serving a copy of documents (including Complaint, Second Appeal and Written submissions) to the opposite party is a fundamental requirement for due process     Right to Information Act 2005    Respondent apologized for not replying contending that there is no link officer to deal with the RTI applications - CIC: A mechanism for appointment of Link Officers be institutionalized under the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks     Right to Information Act 2005    PIO: Marks data of the Typing test was uploaded on the SSC website for a specific period of time and not readily available - CIC: Information is now required to be created after decoding the available data, which is not the mandate of the RTI Act     Right to Information Act 2005    Marks scored by the appellant in exam for Sub-inspector in Delhi Police, CAPFs & Assistant Sub-inspector in CISF - Respondent: Result of candidate was withheld - CIC: No exemption clause invoked; SCN issued to PIO for arbitrary denial; Provide information     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    Are the GST RETURNS liable to be disclosed under the RTI Act, 2005?     Right to Information Act 2005    Degree of an individual is personal and does not warrant disclosure under the RTI Act     Right to Information Act 2005    Inordinate delay in the hearing and disposal of second appeals     Right to Information Act 2005   
2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered
FAQ

Can an applicant request the Information Commission to review its own order?

The Act does not specifically confer a power to the Commission for review of its own decision. The CIC has held that in cases of procedural infirmities which may have led to or may be believed to have led to miscarriage of justice or where there is an error apparent on the face of it, silence of law in regard to review does not prohibit it from undertaking review in specific given circumstances. The CIC relied on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal (AIR 1981 SC 606) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that when a review is sought due to a procedural defect, the inadvertent error committed by the Tribunal must be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its power and such power inherent in every court or tribunal.

 

A review may be taken up if:

       there is a technical error in the decision or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record;

       there was an omission to consider certain material facts relevant for the decision or on discovery of new and important matter of evidence;

       appellant was not given opportunity of being heard;

       PIO has not enclosed relevant supporting documents in his comments furnished to CIC.