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


Information regarding a certified copy of appellant’s answer script for the B.Ed examination was sought - During the hearing, the CIC was informed that the grievance of the Appellant had since been redressed - CIC: No further intervention is required     Right to Information Act 2005    Appellant sought to know the local address of an employee claiming that the allotment of house was based on wrong declaration - CIC: Appellant’s allegation cannot be ascertained in a fool-proof method; Provide the address in larger public interest     Right to Information Act 2005    Information regarding the presence of the total amount at Bastar Post Office etc. was denied u/s 8(1)(j) - Respondent: The appellant is employed is Inspector of Posts and was charge-sheeted - CIC: Sec 8(1)(j) has been wrongly quoted instead of Sec 8(1)(h)     Right to Information Act 2005    Instead of transferring of application, the respondent merely stated that the appellant should file a fresh RTI application with the public authority concerned - CIC: The PIO ought to have transferred the RTI Application; PIO counselled to be more careful     Right to Information Act 2005    How can BCCI (a Pvt. Association) represent India in the International cricket tournament? Is the Cricket team selected by BCCI “a Team India” or “Team BCCI”? - CIC directs the BCCI to explain why should not be declared as a public authority under RTI Act     Right to Information Act 2005    Information relating to test conducted by CPRI for TNEB pertaining to “Type Testing” & “Strip Testing” on meters - CIC: The information pertains to the third party i.e. TNEB which is available to the CPRI in its fiduciary capacity; Exempt from disclosure     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    Disclosure of the documents provided for defending a case of sexual harassment     Right to Information Act 2005    Internet Banking OTP should be part of Mandatory SMS and should not be chargeable     Right to Information Act 2005    A critique of the Supreme Court judgment regarding the fee to be charged under the 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.