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


Certified copy of entire pages of correspondence & noting side of the file by which a particular order was issued - Respondent: Information regarding transfer of other employees has no relationship to any public activity or interest - CIC: Denial upheld     Right to Information Act 2005    Denial of specific part of regulation from which the clause "promotion to a higher grade cannot be made without having the corresponding position available in the higher grade and no promotion can be made effective from a retrospective date” upheld by CIC     Right to Information Act 2005    Copy of NOC issued to an Airman (IAF) was denied claiming that it is 'Personal Information' the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion to the privacy of the individual - CIC: Denial u/s 8(1)(j) upheld; No larger public interest disclosed     Right to Information Act 2005    PIO informed the Appellant that the information sought is not available in their office and transferred the application to Bangalore Development Authority u/s 6(3) - Appellant did not approach the transferee Public Authority - CIC: No intervention needed     Right to Information Act 2005    Transfer of pension to wrong account - Neither the RTI application nor the first appeal was responded by the respondent, on account of non-receipt - Respondent furnished a reply which the appellant claimed to have not received - CIC: Provide revised reply     Right to Information Act 2005    Information regarding home loan in which appellant’s mother, i.e., late Smt. V Jain was a guarantor - CIC: Information was related to third party property loan (Mr. Pradeep Jain and Smt. V Jain), and both are alive; No public activity or interest involved     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    Are the state-funded ‘public trust institutions’ obligated to provide ‘information’ under the RTI Act?     Right to Information Act 2005    Takeaways from the Supreme Court verdict on the Electoral Bond Scheme     Right to Information Act 2005    We will know, we will live - RTI     Right to Information Act 2005   
2nd edition of "PIOs Guide on RTI" published - Based on study of over one lakh orders of CIC and judgments of Courts - Book carries subject wise case laws, latest legal updates, Practical tips for PIOs and FAAs - Needs of all stakeholders covered
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.