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


Information pertaining to appellant’s complaints for the registration of FIR against an unknown culprit for illegal encroachment was denied - CIC: The enquiry has been completed; Provide a copy of the enquiry report along with all annexures and enclosures     Right to Information Act 2005    Although the CIC had accepted that there was a delay in providing the necessary information to the petitioner, it had not imposed the penalty as required u/s 20(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 - HC: It is well settled that imposing of the penalty is discretionary     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: The details of the meetings / annual reports of Indian Gulf Association & other State Associations are not exempt u/s 8 (1) (d) & (f); Disclosure of the names of the Southern Zonal Committee members having voting rights may danger to their security     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: The RTI application & the first appeal were addressed to ‘NCTE, New Delhi’ which is not the complete address of the respondent authority; Hence, there is a doubt whether they were actually received - CIC: Provide an appropriate reply as per the Act     Right to Information Act 2005    PIO: There was a slight difference in the spelling of college name (the alphabet ‘h’ was missing in the records of AICTE) - CIC: PIO could mention in the reply that the college approved with the AICTE was ‘Vaageswari College’ & not ‘Vaageshwari College’     Right to Information Act 2005    Copies of requisition letter seeking anti-doping from NADA moved by National Rifle Association of India were sought - CIC directed the PIO, NADA & PIO, Min of Sports Affairs to facilitate inspection of the corresponding files & provide certified copies     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    Should “corruption” be factored into studies on the ‘ease of doing business’?     Right to Information Act 2005    Indian Bank Association is a public authority under the RTI Act, 2005     Right to Information Act 2005    Is Electoral Bond a retrograde step for transparency in political funding?     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.