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


CIC observed that despite imposition of penalty on the CPIO, she appeared clueless in respect of the nuances of the RTI Act and again appeared without proper explanation for non compliance of the order; A copy of the order was marked to Secretary UGC     Right to Information Act 2005    Information regarding the elections held at Satara Branch of WIRC of ICAI - CIC: Copies of the explanations demanded by Secretary from the returning officer along with copies of the clarifications given by the RO have not been provided, PIO cautioned     Right to Information Act 2005    Information in respect of Cambridge International School, Birad was sought - CIC expressed extreme displeasure over the conduct of the PIO in providing an improper & incomplete reply; PIO warned to be careful in future; Ensure proper implementation of Act     Right to Information Act 2005    Clarifications regarding the validation of appellant’s M.Com degree done from the Maduraikamaraj University was sought - CIC: PIO had no justification to explain the inordinate delay in providing a reply to the appellant; Strict warning issued to the PIO     Right to Information Act 2005    Information regarding the successful candidates in a DDA Residential Scheme & the reasons for not allotting the plots to successful candidates, etc - CIC: DDA to enquire into the matter through an officer of appropriate seniority & furnish the information     Right to Information Act 2005    Details of criminal case registered by CBI was denied u/s 24 - CIC warned the CPIO to ensure that each RTI Application is assessed carefully for the applicability of Section 24 and to steer clear from using cyclostyled replies; PIO should mention his name     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    How much respect should the order of the Supreme Court command?     Right to Information Act 2005    Can a Court disallow what an officer can permit under the RTI Act?     Right to Information Act 2005    Is the recent appointment of Government Officials as Information Commissioners null and void?     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.