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


CIC: RTI Applications are being filed for seeking clarifications on various policy matters of the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks - CIC: Relevant information can be placed in the public domain as per suo motu disclosure     Right to Information Act 2005    Recruitment to the post of Scientist B and Scientific/ Technical Assistant A by NIELIT - CIC: Reply incomplete as no exemption clause claimed u/s 8 - CIC: Guidelines & instructions issued for conduct of an examination and cannot be termed as confidential     Right to Information Act 2005    Information regarding cost analysis of Cement and Steel produced in India - PIO was not able to locate the holder of information - CIC: Unless PIO is certain as to who is the custodian, he cannot transfer the RTI application to any other public authority     Right to Information Act 2005    LPG benefits under Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana - PIO: It does not pertain to RL Division - CIC: The PIO should have transferred the application to the holder of the information u/s 6(3), or obtained the information by taking assistance u/s 5(4)     Right to Information Act 2005    Reasons for not auctioning the property seized by SEBI and the likely date of auction - PIO: Clarification is not information u/s 2(f) - CIC: Appellant is investor in the said company, therefore he has a right to know the status of these seized properties     Right to Information Act 2005    Information about various Regulatory State Council (Medical, Dental, Nursing & Physiotherapy) - CIC: No reply has been provided by the then PIO or FAA; It is disappointing to note the utter disregard towards the provisions of the RTI Act; SCN for penalty     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    Providing copy of “Inter-Caste Marriage” certificates tantamounts to providing third party information     Right to Information Act 2005    Is a reply to a RTI application admissible in a court of law as evidence?     Right to Information Act 2005    Analysis of the Central Information Commission’s (CIC) Annual Report for the year 2020-21     Right to Information Act 2005   
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.