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


IPO payment of Application fee was in favour of Accounts officer - CBSE: Since the IPO was not drawn in favour of the Secretary, hence no information was provided - CIC: Regulations of CBSE cannot prevail over the rules made under the RTI Act, 2005     Right to Information Act 2005    Outcome of Income Tax investigation - CIC: The broad outcome of the investigation should be disclosed to the appellant as soon as the investigation is completed - whether the allegations made in the TEP are fully true, partially true or untrue     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: Dissemination of the guidelines relating to grant of Certificate of Registration to Securitization companies etc. would not only helps the prospective applicants to access information, but would also enhance transparency in the grant of CoRs     Right to Information Act 2005    Information in respect of reasons for delay in receiving study material, total number of employees in IGNOU etc. were sought - CIC cautioned the PIO to exercise due care in future to ensure that complete information is furnished timely to RTI applicant     Right to Information Act 2005    Applicant sought action taken report on his representation regarding guidance to the senior citizen concerning facilitation of special counter for senior citizen etc at post office - CIC recommended the Public Authority to mark sign boards & instructions     Right to Information Act 2005    Appellant: Section 2(f) entitles to seek the information which the Public Authority was entitled to access under any law from a Private Body like M/s Guru Govind Singh Refinery - CIC: No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter     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    Inquiry held and the action taken by the Government following the Mumbai attack     Right to Information Act 2005    Union Ministry of Defence directed to disclose Joint Operational Doctrines under the RTI Act     Right to Information Act 2005    There are a host of issues for law students to do research in respect of the RTI Act, 2005     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.