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


Information regarding the assignment of outdoor advertisement rights of various sites under the jurisdiction of DMC & private entities would be protected u/s 8(1)(d) - CIC: Exemption shall cease to apply if the allegations of tax evasion are substantiated     Right to Information Act 2005    PIO: Information regarding supply of ticket of certain denominations in the name of certain individuals was not available - CIC: Provide point-wise information; Show cause notice issued to PIO why maximum penalty should not be imposed against him     Right to Information Act 2005    The PIO submitted that records were not available - CIC: The PIO was directed to submit an affidavit indicating the date of destruction of the said records along with a copy of the order of the competent authority authorising such destruction     Right to Information Act 2005    Information regarding his SB account was sought - PIO: As per the departmental guidelines, the preservation policy of maintaining such forms has been lapsed - CIC directed the respondent authority to provide certified copy of the guidelines     Right to Information Act 2005    No response was given to application seeking information about status of appellant’s PF claim - CIC: This is illegal and blatant denial of information on the lame excuse that the records could not be traced; Penalty of Rs 25,000 imposed on PIO     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: The assets & liabilities of an employee, which he discloses to his employer in compliance of the Service Rules applicable to him, qualifies as personal information - CIC advised the IT Deptt to consider publishing the IT Act in Telugu Language     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    A critique of the Supreme Court judgment regarding the fee to be charged under the RTI Act     Right to Information Act 2005    Analysis of the Supreme Court Judgment regarding disclosure of Civil Service results by UPSC     Right to Information Act 2005    Analysis of affidavits of candidates contesting in the Nagaland Assembly Elections     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.