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


CIC: On being queried regarding the reasons for not providing the Appellant his own ACR reports, it was re-iterated that the said information was not available with them - CIC instructed the Respondent to furnish copies of ACR to the Appellant     Right to Information Act 2005    Information regarding grant given to Universities by the Central Government - CIC instructed the Secretary, MHRD to depute an officer not below the rank of a JS to examine the RTI application & provide a suitable response - Show cause notice for penalty     Right to Information Act 2005    A grievance related to promotion and transfer of SAG grade General Duties medical Officer in ESIC - CIC advised the appellant to submit a representation to the Public Authority and directed the PIO to provide action taken report after consultation     Right to Information Act 2005    It was noted by the CIC that invalid transfer was done & that too not in the proper format; The then PIO of CVC was warned - CIC: The PIO should note that in future if the same mistake is noticed, more stringent action can be taken against him     Right to Information Act 2005    Information pertaining to agenda for relaxation of Rule17 of the DDA (Disposal of Developed Nazul Land) Rules sent to M/o Housing & Urban Affairs for consideration & issue of final notification - CIC directed to facilitate inspection of documents     Right to Information Act 2005    Appellant filed multiple RTI applications of similar nature seeking information related to charge-sheet against him - CIC: Appellant is advised not to file multiple applications; Public Authority is authorized to reject applications with identical subject     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    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    Proposal to amend the RTI Act to vary the salaries payable to the Information Commissioners     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.