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


CIC: Appellant was seeking personal information of a third party, who is a junior colleague in his office, solely for the purpose of redressing his grievance regarding promotion vis-à-vis her promotion, apparently given to her earlier; Exempt u/s 8(1)(j)     Right to Information Act 2005    Documents relating to allotment of government accommodation to Defence Accounts Deptt. (DAD) officers denied citing Sec 7(9) of the RTI Act - CIC: Appellant failed to avail of the opportunity of inspection facility given; No scope for providing any relief     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: Details of M.Tech. sponsored students and their sponsoring organization pertains to personal information - CIC: PIO has erred in giving the details of said students without seeking consent u/s 11 of RTI Act; PIO advised to exercise due diligence     Right to Information Act 2005    Advertisement concessionaire agreement issued by Airport Authority denied on the ground of commercial confidence - CIC: The First Appeals had not been dealt with appropriately & were disposed off with rather vague and generic orders; Cases remanded to FAA     Right to Information Act 2005    Action taken on complaint - CIC: Writ Petitions filed by CVC against certain orders of CIC with respect to disclosures ordered under the RTI Act in PIDPI matters are pending before the Delhi HC - CIC: For the said reason, the appeal is adjourned sine die     Right to Information Act 2005    Whether a particular DSE of ASI was granted bail by CBI Court & related information was denied u/s 24 - CIC took grave exception to the gross non-application of mind of the PIO - CIC: Information pertains to a third party exempt u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act     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    Karnataka HC: Provide copy of report with enclosures when the investigation in the matter had been concluded     Right to Information Act 2005    Papers containing details of the operations launched by Indian Defence Forces in J&K in 1947     Right to Information Act 2005    Should CBSE be allowed to charge Rs 500/- for a copy of the answer sheet?     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.