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


Appellant sought specific information related to his deceased son, but the Respondent chosen to give vague reply to the Appellant; It shows the clear malafide intent of the PIO in obstructing basic information - CIC: Re-examine and give point-wise reply     Right to Information Act 2005    Relevant hyperlink has been furnished to the Appellant - CIC: When an information or record is already in the public domain, the same cannot be said to be held or under the control of public authority and it is deemed to be given to the public at large     Right to Information Act 2005    Respondent: Information involved procedure followed by the University on the basis of marks of multiple candidates - CIC: Relevant exemption clauses u/s 8 (1) of the RTI Act were not cited by the erstwhile CPIO; Re-visit point no. (v) of RTI application     Right to Information Act 2005    Respondent: Medical bill submitted by the complainant was processed repeatedly to PCDA (CC) Lucknow; Hospital has verified that bills are genuine and has given CTC of the same; Bills will be forwarded to the PCDA office - CIC: Complaint dismissed     Right to Information Act 2005    Information regarding Dependent Identity Card issued by Indian Army - Respondent: It is issued by the CO; Issued to avail travelling, medical facility as well as CSD canteen facility besides being proof of identity - CIC: No further action required     Right to Information Act 2005    CIC: RTI queries are worded in a manner that conveys sheer anguish being harbored by the Appellant; Under the garb of seeking for information, he appears to be channelizing his grievance by raising speculative and interrogative queries; Provide status     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    We will know, we will live - RTI     Right to Information Act 2005    Disclosure of third party agreements entered into by UIDAI for handling grievance redressal     Right to Information Act 2005    Service particulars of colleagues to be furnished for dispute arises relating to confirmation, seniority, promotion     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.