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


CIC: The PIO to showcause why action should not be taken under the RTI Act for his misconduct & negligence - CIC instructed the MGM Medical College to convene periodic conferences to sensitize & educate the concerned officials about the RTI provisions     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC perused the two RTI Applications written in the same hand writing filed by different individuals - CIC: This does not take away the gross violation of the RTI provisions by the PIO - CIC expressed severe displeasure & marked a copy of the order to FAA     Right to Information Act 2005    Appellant: Denial of information u/s 8(1)(h) is rather bizarre as the case pertains to a period dating back 22 years - CIC: PIO mechanically invoked the exemption on the premise that de novo inquiries are pending against the Appellant; Inspection allowed     Right to Information Act 2005    Appellant sought copy of remarks, noting of concerned authorities on her 9 letters, copy of show-cause notice issued to her husband Lt. Col. Arun Gulati and copy of the said officer’s reply - CIC: The denial of information u/s 8(1)(j) is not appropriate     Right to Information Act 2005    Copies of testimonials submitted by the candidates at the time of their appointments was denied under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act - CIC: Mere allegation of corruption cannot imply larger public interest; No further intervention of the CIC is required     Right to Information Act 2005    In the light of the categorical submission made by the MHRD regarding the status of the Lawrence School Lovedale as a Public Authority, the CIC directed to disclose the information regarding the approval of the buildings, number of canteens/ hostels, etc.     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    Is the recent appointment of Government Officials as Information Commissioners null and void?     Right to Information Act 2005    There can be no dispute that the human rights would include life and liberty     Right to Information Act 2005    What are the criteria for selecting 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.