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


Information regarding Aarogya Setu Data Access & Knowledge Sharing Protocol was sought - CIC: First appeal was not enclosed with complaint memo & might have been filed after the complaint was filed; This complaint cannot be converted into a second appeal     Right to Information Act 2005    Is an appellant is entitled to get a copy of the comparative statement of the tenderers for the aforesaid tender after its finalization? - CIC: Provide it after redacting the commercial /personal information of the bidders such as TIN no., PAN no. etc.     Right to Information Act 2005    ODI List - Information about number of officers in the ODI list, those exonerated, date of review meeting was denied u/s 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) - CIC: Disclosure would defeat the very purpose of surveillance conducted through the established procedure of ODI     Right to Information Act 2005    Web link of gazette notification was provided on request for a certified copy of UGC regulations making National Eligibility Test or PhD as minimum mandatory qualification for the appointment of lecturers - CIC: Providing certified copy is not mandatory     Right to Information Act 2005    Procedure adopted for the appointment of Professor - CIC: Providing a reply now after the hearing notice was received shows that the same could have been given on time; The deemed PIOs and FAA were not following the RTI Act; Strict warning issued     Right to Information Act 2005    Information specifically relating to the functioning of the HR department of the Enforcement Directorate wherein allegedly obtained wrongful employment was obtained by producing fake Handicapped Certificate - CIC: It pertains to corruption in the ED     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    HC: Penalty proceedings u/s 20 for non compliance of the order passed by the SIC     Right to Information Act 2005    Madras HC directs TN Public Service Commission to disclose the details of caste, including sub-caste     Right to Information Act 2005    A 2 million question! How can you seek answers for your problems using RTI Act?     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.