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


Information about scheme for revision of pay scales of Teachers in the Universities and Colleges and other measures for maintenance of standards in higher education - CIC: PIO cautioned to remain extremely careful while handling the RTI applications     Right to Information Act 2005    Information about encounters in Uttar Pradesh was sought from PIO, MHA - CIC: The custodian of the information was the UP State Government; Since the subject matter falls outside the purview of the Central list, case forwarded to the UP State Information     Right to Information Act 2005    Respondent: Appellant’s OMR sheet will be provided upon finalisation of the result; She may file a fresh RTI application for it - CIC: Such practice by DSSB is not acceptable; It causes unnecessary hardship to the information seeker & violates the RTI Act     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: The Bombay High Court order does not pertain to stay on the information part of the RTI application; No merit in withholding the information - CIC: Provide the progress report, name & designation of the officials with whom the first appeal was lying     Right to Information Act 2005    RTI application was filed to know the action taken on the complaint filed by the appellant - CIC: The UGC should give a categorical reply as to how the complaint was dealt with; Take assistance u/s 5(4) from the concerned section & provide complete detail     Right to Information Act 2005    The guidelines etc. regarding the appointment of Postmaster as CAPIO in post offices & responsibilities - CIC: PIO is not bound to give hard copies of the documents when the information is available in public domain on the website of the public authority     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    Electoral Bonds have become the preferred route for corporates and individuals making large donations     Right to Information Act 2005    Office of the Chief Justice of India is covered under the ambit of the RTI Act     Right to Information Act 2005    Government notifies amendment to RTI Rules in respect of 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.