Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'review decision'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Request for Community Support
  • Connect with Community
  • Learn about RTI
  • Website News & Support
  • Read RTI News & Stories
  • RTI Act Critics's RTI Act Critics Topics
  • Fans of RTI India's Fans of RTI India Topics
  • Insurance Consumer's Insurance Consumer Topics
  • Activists of Transparency and Accountability's Activists of Transparency and Accountability Topics
  • Issues with BWSSB's Issues with BWSSB Topics
  • Law+Order-Bangalore-32's Law+Order-Bangalore-32 Topics
  • Issues With Electricity Board's Issues With Electricity Board Topics
  • RTI Activists's RTI Activists Topics
  • YOGA's YOGA Topics
  • help each other's help each other Topics
  • forest and wild life's forest and wild life Topics
  • Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C.'s Indian Police Officials not following Cr.P.C. Topics
  • RTI Activist+Politics's RTI Activist+Politics Topics
  • hostels and lodging places's hostels and lodging places Topics
  • RTI Activists in Rajasthan.'s RTI Activists in Rajasthan. Topics
  • RTI info warriors in Haryana's RTI info warriors in Haryana Topics
  • DisABILITY Rights and RTI's DisABILITY Rights and RTI Topics
  • Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI.'s Govt Servant, Local Bodies or PSU Employees using RTI. Topics
  • Eco club's Eco club Topics
  • Self Employment in Sport's Self Employment in Sport Topics
  • RTI related to land issue's RTI related to land issue Topics
  • Open SourceTechnology support to RTI's Open SourceTechnology support to RTI Topics
  • TRAP group's TRAP group Topics
  • Odisha RTI Activists's Odisha RTI Activists Topics
  • right to information activists's right to information activists Topics
  • Mumbai's Mumbai Topics
  • Chartered Accountants's Chartered Accountants Topics
  • ngosamachar's ngosamachar Topics
  • Growing INDIA's Growing INDIA Topics
  • we are all friends.'s we are all friends. Topics
  • RTI for Government employees's RTI for Government employees Topics
  • Dhanus - Pending Salaries's Dhanus - Pending Salaries Topics
  • Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors's Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessors Topics
  • Mahamumbai's Mahamumbai Topics
  • M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech's M.Sc/MCA and ME/M.Tech Topics
  • Corruption's Corruption Topics
  • minority engineering colleges in maharashtra's minority engineering colleges in maharashtra Topics
  • RiGhTs's RiGhTs Topics
  • ram's ram Topics
  • anti corrupt police's anti corrupt police Topics
  • Save Girl in Punjab's Save Girl in Punjab Topics
  • Rent Apartment in US's Rent Apartment in US Topics
  • RTI Kerala's RTI Kerala Topics
  • maharashtra's maharashtra Topics
  • Right Way Of India(RTI)'s Right Way Of India(RTI) Topics
  • Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India's Whistle- Blowers against corrupt India Topics
  • Navi Mumbai's Navi Mumbai Topics
  • electricity curruption in up's electricity curruption in up Topics
  • SHARE n STOCKS trading's SHARE n STOCKS trading Topics
  • Civil Engineers-CAD's Civil Engineers-CAD Topics
  • Nitin Aggarwal's Nitin Aggarwal Topics
  • ex-serviceman activities's ex-serviceman activities Topics
  • SSCC's SSCC Topics
  • Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates's Remove Corrupt Bueraucrates Topics
  • jharkhand RTI activist group's jharkhand RTI activist group Topics
  • Suhail's Suhail Topics
  • govt.servant's govt.servant Topics
  • RTI Uttar pradesh's RTI Uttar pradesh Topics
  • anti-corruption team's anti-corruption team Topics
  • Manaism's Manaism Topics
  • Insurance's Insurance Topics
  • sonitpur datri sewa samity's sonitpur datri sewa samity Topics
  • indian youth manch's indian youth manch Topics
  • HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies's HUDA Co- Operative Group Housing Societies Topics
  • youth's youth Topics
  • aastha's aastha Topics
  • RTI for Citizens's RTI for Citizens Topics
  • learn always's learn always Topics
  • R.T.I.'s R.T.I. Topics
  • Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana's Karnataka Karmika Kalyana Prathishtana Topics
  • Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna's Akhil Bhart anti corruption sangathna Topics
  • MBA, business and new entrepreneur.....'s MBA, business and new entrepreneur..... Topics
  • students seeking help's students seeking help Topics
  • RTI Corporate's RTI Corporate Topics
  • Electrical group's Electrical group Topics
  • V4LRights's V4LRights Topics
  • Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool's Pirated software in GOvt oofice and sc hool Topics
  • Gaming's Gaming Topics
  • WE Born to help's WE Born to help Topics
  • help the elderly citizen's help the elderly citizen Topics
  • Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association's Ballygunge Government Hogh School Alumni Association Topics
  • Corruption free Country's Corruption free Country Topics
  • surajyam's surajyam Topics
  • kanpurvictims's kanpurvictims Topics
  • Railway Group A Services's Railway Group A Services Topics
  • Encroachment of public property by private giants's Encroachment of public property by private giants Topics
  • Case Status - Anti Corruption's Case Status - Anti Corruption Topics
  • Aam Aadmi (The Common Man)'s Aam Aadmi (The Common Man) Topics
  • Court Marriage in Punjab's Court Marriage in Punjab Topics
  • ALL's ALL Topics
  • Youth India Social Group (YISG)'s Youth India Social Group (YISG) Topics
  • ye kya fandda h's ye kya fandda h Topics
  • mindset's mindset Topics
  • anti corruption's anti corruption Topics
  • activism's activism Topics
  • common's common Topics
  • state group's state group Topics
  • social help group's social help group Topics
  • landlords of uttar pradesh's landlords of uttar pradesh Topics
  • Concern Citizens Forum for India's Concern Citizens Forum for India Topics
  • edusystem's edusystem Topics
  • Ratna Jyoti's Ratna Jyoti Topics
  • development in indian village's development in indian village Topics
  • technovision's technovision Topics
  • Mighty India's Mighty India Topics
  • Against Corporate Fraud's Against Corporate Fraud Topics
  • Stop crime's Stop crime Topics
  • NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti's NVS - Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti Topics
  • Authenticated Public Plateform's Authenticated Public Plateform Topics
  • shalin's shalin Topics
  • terminater's terminater Topics
  • RTI Wind Energy's RTI Wind Energy Topics
  • Go..................?'s Go..................? Topics
  • Co-Op Housing Society's Co-Op Housing Society Topics
  • we are equal's we are equal Topics
  • Phoenix Deals's Phoenix Deals Topics
  • Theft Cases in chandigarh's Theft Cases in chandigarh Topics
  • Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits's Economically Weaker Section Certificate & Benifits Topics
  • Solar Systems's Solar Systems Topics
  • Get aware about ur Education and related rights's Get aware about ur Education and related rights Topics
  • Save Mumbai's Save Mumbai Topics
  • Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board's Complaints to MCD & Delhi Jal Board Topics
  • ashayen's ashayen Topics
  • unemployment's unemployment Topics
  • Employee Solution's Employee Solution Topics
  • is kanpur university against sc/st's is kanpur university against sc/st Topics
  • prayatna's prayatna Topics
  • Parking woes's Parking woes Topics
  • Helping RTI INDIA web development's Helping RTI INDIA web development Topics


  • Uncategorized
  • Section 18 (1)
  • Section 11
  • For Common Man
  • Section 16
  • Section 2(h)
  • Section 8 (1)(j)
  • Simplified RTI
  • Government Employee and RTI
  • RTI Act 2005
  • Success Stories
  • Exempt Organisation
  • DG IT
  • Section 8 (1) (e)
  • Section 2 (h) (d) (i)
  • Supreme Court Decisions
  • Section 2 (j) (i)
  • Section 2
  • Section 8
  • Section 20
  • Section 19
  • SIC Punjab
  • High Court Decisions
  • Section 9
  • Section 24
  • DoPT
  • RTI Awareness
  • Section 6 (3)
  • Section 6
  • Section 2 (f)
  • Opinion
  • Department of Posts
  • Ministry of Railways
  • Departments
  • Ministry of Home Affairs
  • Ministry of Corporate Affairs
  • Ministry of Law & Justice
  • Government of NCT of Delhi
  • Delhi Police
  • Ministry of Human Resource Development
  • Staff Selection Commission
  • Court Decisions
  • CIC Decisions
  • Activism
  • Section 25
  • University
  • Section 7
  • Ministry of Agriculture
  • Section 3
  • RTI Discussions
  • Section 19 (8) (b)
  • Section (1) (d)
  • Section 8 (1) (d)
  • DIrectorate of Education
  • Govt of NCT of Delhi
  • Cooperative Housing Society
  • RTI for School
  • Member RTI
  • Municipal Corporation
  • Ministry of Defence


  • RTI Directory
  • Important RTI Decisions
  • Other Important Court Decisions
  • Sample RTI
  • Acts & Circulars


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...

Found 24 results

  1. Here is the outcome of the members from our twitter community
  2. In the business plan submitted along with its bid, Reliance Infrastructure, which was the successful bidder for the Mumbai Metro project, had projected and provisioned for losses for running the Metro for 8 years of operations. It had bagged the project by projecting reduced expenses of about Rs1,048 crore to get this important PPP project from MMRDA. That the company is now working against its own planned projection and causing harassment to Mumbaikars for earning high profits can be understood from the following facts. This Information has been provided to RTI activist Anil Galgali by the MMRDA administration. The dispute between Reliance and the MMRDA has resulted in inconveniencing the Mumbaikars due to a fare hike as well as a projected fare hike. With an objective to understand the dispute RTI activist Anil Galgali had filed an RTI query seeking information pertaining to the project from the MMRDA. In a reply, MMRDA Informed Galgali that, Reliance and IICU-IL&FS had bid for the Mumbai Metro project under PPP method. Read more at; Why has Reliance asked for a fare revision for Mumbai Metro? - Moneylife
  3. Hello, I have applied for passport on 25thMay 2015 in Bangalore, Sai Arcade PSK and my file number is given below. File no. : BN2078448098715 Since i stayed in Bangalore and pune in last 1 year, police verification was initiated at both cities. Present address : Bangalore Previous address : Pune Police verification was completed in Bangalore and i got SMS for this on 30/05/2015 Police verification was done on 11June 2015 in Pune and same was confirmed as completed by Police Officer from Wakad police station Pune. However, i still haven't received any SMS for this. The status of my application shows as application is under review at regional passport office and there is no change in this status even after police verification is done. Please let me know the progress of my application and guide me on next step as already both city police verification is done. I have also sent an email to "rpo.bangalore@mea.gov.in" but havent recieved any reposne. Neither am i able to connect to any of the Banglore RPO numbers i got from website.
  4. Request for review was denied by cic mentioning The Delhi High Court in WP © 5086/2010 dt.18.11-2011 in the case of Suhas Chukma Vs. Union of India. Can some body state essence/reasons and further developments (When there is a mistake on appreciation of facts)
  5. In this post, I have attached a file containing the general format of representation prepared on my own, for review based on procedural defects apparent on the face of record. This procedure can be used to review the procedurally defective orders apparent on the face of record, issued by the FAA and Information commission. This procedure is applicable even in the absence of a specific provision in the statute for review. I have used this representation myself successfully before the Reserve Bank of India, Hyderabad Region, in an issue pertaining to my complaint against a bank related to non-maintenance of record related to currency sorted through the note sorting machines. Based on my representation, a notice for hearing was issued by the Reserve Bank of India, Hyderabad Region, for my complaint, which was earlier disposed without issuing a prior notice of hearing by the said authority. This format is not limited just for the cases connected to RTI applications / appeals. This format can be used even for setting right and ensuring accountability for the procedurally defective administrative decisions by the concerned official / authority. The reference numbers in the attached file are to be changed accordingly based on the number of documents ( applications, decisions of the authority ) the applicant relies upon to substantiate the error apparent on the face of record. General format for the Representation for review.doc
  6. In the following order, CIC has withdrawn compensation because all information has been supplied. http://www.rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/CIC_DS_A_2013_001250-SA_T_135122.pdf FACTS: 2. The Commission vide its order dated 652014, had directed the Public Authority to pay a token compensation of Rs.5,000/to the appellant for the loss suffered by him because of nonsupply of information by the Public Authority, who could not trace the file. DECISION: 3. During the hearing today, the respondent authority submitted that the information was supplied to the appellant, after tracing the missing file. Hence they appealed to review the order of awarding token compensation of Rs.5,000/- against them. Since the information sought was given to the appellant and the file was traced, the matter of awarding compensation to the appellant does not arise. They have also shown to the Commission, the original paper in which the appellant opted out of the pension. This was the paper which was claimed to have been missing earlier and based on this, the entire information litigation was continuing for the last several years from the days of the former Information Commissioner, Shri A.N.Tiwari. The appellant has filed multiple applications and a lot of valuable time of the Commission and the Public Authority was spent on these RTI applications. The appellant had opted out of pension on 111.1993 and now insisting on pension. The respondent authority has tried their best to trace the file of the original documents. The Commission had ordered compensation earlier as the original document, wherein the appellant opted out of pension, was not shown to the Commission. All the relevant copies of the papers were furnished to the appellant, but still he is not satisfied. He claims that it is not the original and something else is also there. The Commission observes that all possible information and documents were given to him and the appellant was not entitled to pension, based on the documents which bear his signatures. There was no loss suffered by him, because the entire information was furnished. Hence the Commission withdraws its earlier order of awarding compensation to the appellant and holds that the respondent authority have furnished all the information sought by the appellant. No paper or file is pending with them to be given to the appellant. Hence they need not pay any compensation to the appellant. 4. The Commission also intends to put an end to this longdrawn information litigation, with the issue of this order. Any further applications on this subject by the appellant have to be closed then and there itself, at the level of PIO, giving reference to this order, so that the multiplicity of litigation on this subject is not encouraged. The matter is closed. (M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner
  7. Many UGC recognised private universities are refusing to provide information under the RTI act by claiming that section 2(F) is not applicable to them. Many also get injunctions from courts and refuse to provide information when asked to do so via the UGC. Complaints to the CIC seem to go both ways. Examples of such universities include the Vinayaka Mission, Sikkim Manipal and Others. The provisions of the RTI act should be applicable to all educational bodies. Any dissent should automatically result in derecognition. I think the act needs to be revised to include this provision.
  8. The Orders of the PSIC are as below : CC No. 3375 of 2011 An application under Section 18 of the RTI Act is not the same as an Appeal under Section 19 of the Act. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and another vs. State of Manipur and another, Civil Appeal No.10787-88 of 2011 decided on 12.12.2011 considered this issue. The order of the High Court had been challenged on the ground that the High Court had erroneously observed that under Section 18 of the RTI Act, an Information Commissioner has no power to direct furnishing of the information. The High Court had held that such a power is conferred only under Section 19 of the Act, which provides for appeal. The question, considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court related to the issue of jurisdiction of the Information Commissioners under Section 18 of the Act in directing disclosure ofinformation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held (Para 31 and 32 ofthe judgment) that Information Commissioners, while entertaining a Complaintunder Section 18 has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to information. It was held that the remedy for such a person, who has been refused information, is provided under Section 19 of the Act. The SC further directed (Para 44 of thejudgment) the appellant to file appeal under Section 19 of the Act in respectof his two RTI requests for obtaining information. Thus,though a PIO may is not barred from furnishing information even after filing ofa Complaint under Section 18, the domain of Section 18 is not to furnish the information, for which an information-seeker should seek remedy under Section19 of the Act ibid. The present Complainant having moved an application under Section 18 of the Act ibid erron eously expects the Commission to direct the respondent for disclosure of information, in the present review petition. 5. While disposing of the Complaint case,CC-3375/2011, it had emerged that PIO never received the RTI application dated 9.7.2011 or the statutory fee and therefore, the question that the PIO denied the information unreasonably or malafidely or intentional does not arise.Section 20 of the Act was not attracted to the facts of the case. The complaint case-CC-3375/2011 could have been straightway closed, but it was not done since the respondent was willing to cooperate in furnishing of the information as per record. The position pertaining to all the seven points raised in the RTI application was clarified by the respondent PIO and CC-3375 was closed. 6. As for imposition of penalty, it is pertinent totake note of the observations of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in LPA 764/2011decided on 9.1.2012, Ankur Mutreja vs. Delhi University. In this case it was held that imposition of penalty does not follow everyviolation of the Act, but only such violations as is without reasonable cause,intentional and malafide. The issue before the Hon’ble High Court was whether an information-seeker has a right tobe heard in penalty proceedings under Section 20 of the RTI Act. The Hon’ble High Court held that (Para 10 and11 of the judgment) a complainant cannot as a matter of right claim to be heardin penalty proceedings, which are between the Information Commissioner and the Public Information Officer. The court observed that appellant cannot urge that it has a right to participate inpenalty proceedings. The court held that penalty proceedings are akin to contempt proceedings; the settled position with respect thereto is that after bringing facts to the notice of the Court, it becomes a matter between the Court and contemnor and the informant or the relaters who brought the factum of contempt having been committed to the notice of the Court, does not become a complainant or petitioner in the contempt proceedings. Thus, once the complainant had brought thefacts before the Information Commission and after he had been heard on theissue, he had no right to either insist that penalty shall be imposed on the PIO or that he may be given opportunity to be heard regarding the quantum ofsuch penalty. The Information Commission was to independently come to the conclusion whether the conduct of the PIO is covered under Section 20 or whether the case was fit for imposition ofpenalty. Since in this case, the RTI application dated 9.7.2011 was never received by the PIO in the very first instance, the question of PIO having acted without reasonable cause or with malafide intent could never possibly arise. Similarly, in State of Punjab Vs. State Information Commissioner, Punajb, CWP 6504 of 2009, decided on 4.3.10, while setting aside penalty imposed under Section 20 of the RTI Act on the PIO by the State Information Commissioner for reasons of delay in furnishing the information, Hon’ble Justice K. Kannan observed that, “The penalty provisions under Section 20 is only to sensitize the public authorities that they should act with all due alacrity and not hold up information which a person seeks to obtain. It is not every delay that should be visited with penalty. If there is delay and it is explained , the question will only revolve on whether the explanation is acceptable or not. If there had beendelay of a year and if there was a Superintendent, who was prodding the PIO to act, that itself should be seen a circumstance where government authoritiesseemed reasonably aware of the compulsion of time and imperatives of providing information without delay. The 2nd respondent has got what he wanted and ifthere was delay, the delay was for reasons explained above which I accept asjustified.” (The 2nd respondent in this case was the information seeker.)(Emphasis provided to highlight the ruling) 7. Inview of the foregoing discussion, the insistence of the complainant that penalty must be imposed on the PIO, therefore, is not based on law. 8. Even otherwise, this Commission lacksjurisdiction to review its own orders, passed on merits after hearing the parties. The Delhi High Court in Delhi Development Authority Vs Central Information Commission and Anr. ,(MANU/de/1072/2010), has held that neither the RTI Act nor the rules framedthere under grant the power of review to Information Commission or the Chief Information Commissioner. Once the statute does not provide for the power of review, the Information Commissioners cannot without any authority of law, assume the power of review or even of aspecial leave to appeal. It is correct that the Courts and quasi-judicial authorities have an inherent power of review but that is limited to correction of typographical errors or mistakes of a clerical nature or an error apparenton the face of record. However, under the RTI Act, there is no substantive power to reopen an order passed on merits, after affording due opportunity to the parties to represent their respective case. 9.11.2012(R).doc
  9. CIC has ruled that Names of reporting and reviewing officers OF ACR to be disclosed under RTI to the applicant for his own ACRs. Full order is attached to this post. Names of reporting and reviewing officers of ACR to be provided.pdf
  10. I've noticed some recent references on this site to possible requests for a review by the CIC. I am trying to figure out if one request I initiated, for which an appeal hearing was heard on April 21, would be an appropriate case for such a request to be made, and whether that would save me time. At the appeal hearing on April 21, the CIC basically rejected ALL -- yes, ALL -- of the previous objections raised (not only in the case of my request, but actually also in connection with several prior requests made by several other academics before me). But the respondent, SEBI, brought in a brand new claim, that it needed to collect the data from other "custodial institutions." Neither I nor the CIC could argue over this without knowing anything more. Since then I have contacted several custodial instituions, and one was kind enough to actually send detailed data descriptions of the computer files they routinely submit to SEBI as part of compliance requirements. From this it is absolutely transparent that the SEBI's claim during the hearing -- to get data from its custodians -- related to data that it ALREADY has. The CIC remanded my case to SEBI's AA, and made the further stipulation that unlike in the past, I had to be given an opportunity to be heard. I was initially happy with just that, but given what has just now come to light -- that SEBI's reps blatantly and materially misrepresented facts during the last CIC hearing, I am wondering if I could save myself some time by asking the CIC to review its ruling, and simply require SEBI to make the data available in 30 days. SEBI has punted so far in all for over 5 years. Have just gone back and looked briefly at the RTI Act. There's no guidance in it relating to review petitions. It's also not clear if this will in fact help speed anything up ... if the CIC will itself not get around to looking at this for a few months, which also seems very likely, given its massive caseload. Any comments, suggestions, or links to other related information, would be very welcome. Thank you. Best, Murgie
  11. URGENT Dear Experts and Peers, I have filed a review Application before the Chief Information Commissioner, Punjab for review of its earlier order as the same was not based on the facts and material available on record. While accepting the "Review Application" CIC has asked me to file the reason as to why should he go ahead and review his earlier order. It is requested that I may please be informed of the earlier order of any Information Commissioner of Punjab where the orders were reviewed and changed. Order of the Central Information Commission as well as any other State Information Commission will also do. Also please let me know is there are and HC/SC rulings, any law permitting the review of own order. Also apprise me some arguments for the case. I need this information early as I have to file before the commission by 24 august 2012. At present I have following citation and orders of the CIC Punjab that were reviewed and altered on the "Review Applications" filed by PIOs. CC No. 1925 of 2012 of 04 July 2012 of SICP AC-304 of 2009 is one of them which was decided on 22-6-2010 of SICP Shri Hitender Jain vs. PIO/Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana, CC-139 of 2006 of SICP In M.K. Venkatachalam Vs Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Col Ltd. , 1958 ITR 143 SC , the SC observed that in case of apparent error on the face of record, the power to review can be exercised. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Assistant Commissioner Income Tax Rajkot vs. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange (2008-14-Supreme Court Cases 171). This case pertains to recall of its own erroneous order by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that had failed to take cognizance of the decisions of the superior court. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that this amounted to a mistake apparent from the record that could be rectified. Constitution of India - Article 137. Review of judgments or orders by the Supreme Court.— Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it. Constitution of India - Article 144 - Civil and judicial authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court.—All authorities, civil and judicial, in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. Constitution of India - Rules of Court, etc.— Article 145(1)(e) rules as to the conditions subject to which any judgment pronounced or order made by the Court may be reviewed and the procedure for such review including the time within which applications to the Court for such review are to be entered; Constitution of India - Article 141. Law declared by Supreme Court to be binding on all courts.— The law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. Also please refer to the thread http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/98361-commission-have-powers-review-its-own-order-withdraw-recall-order-imposing-penalty-psic.html Please see the above and advise me, favour me and oblige me with your kind opinion and more options
  12. Can any body enlighten whether the CIC has power to recall or ammend or modify or review his own decision? If an erroneous decision is passed by CIC without any documentary evidence simply believing on the verbal submission of the SPIO and AA in the final appeal then what remedy is left before the information seeker? Please advice with the relevant law.adil
  13. I attach decision No. CIC/LS/A/2011/902758 dated 29-12-2011, where in Telecom Regulatory Authority of India [TRAI] has been ordered to suck information from private service provider [Reliance mobile] and supply to the applicant. Please also refer my blog at Private entity: http://www.rtiindia.org/forum/blogs/jps50/154-how-get-information-private-entity-under-rti.html TRAI CIC DECI TO SUCK INFO FROM MOB CO.pdf
  14. How, where and when an ex parte decision of CIC can be challenged/agitated? During hearing before CIC the respondent (a representative of CPIO) suppressed the important material facts and as a result of which the CIC came to a particular decision. Later on, these suppressed important material facts came into the notice to the applicant appellant through information supplied by different CPIO under another RTI application. Suggest an appropriate mechanism for the action against the CPIO for suppressing the facts and misleading the CIC!
  15. k.k.jandial

    Review petiiton in SIC Punjab

    In a rti application orders dated 22-12-2009 avaiiable on its web site ,Sic punjab., A.C.568 of 2009 has said that it will not go behind the orders of the FAA which were passed at the back of the Appellant i.e with out coductig any hearing thus knowingly shielded the FAA & protected his actions violating the various provisions of rti act& also did not issue notce for taking action against the PIO& FAA for delaying the information for 300 days. Clearly SiC pb.MRS.Rupan Deol Bajaj ignored the violation of provisions of RTI Act. can review pettition be filed before CIC Pb. submitting that notice be issed to PIo & FAA U/S 20 of rti act and taking action against them & quashing the orders of FAA & also awarding copensation to the Appellant u/s 19(8) (b) of rti act for loss and detriment suffered by him.. These points were taken in appeal but Sic did not favouably consider these points. k.k.jandial
  16. The last two paras of my letter/ application, See all as attached 7) The Honorable Commissioner listened my arguments, well noticed/observed and even then neither have recorded/mentioned in his order nor passed any order on this point and rather have ordered the guilty PIO/APIO to go scot free without any penalty while intentional delay in providing me the information had been proved. I will like to quote the Sec 20 (1) specifically where … The SIC….at the time of deciding appeal if of the opinion that …The SPIO…has not furnished information with the time………it shall impose penalty…..rupees. I have written “Shall” in bold to convey you that the imposition of penalty is mandatory and not discretionary with the ICs. The word shall clearly direct the ICs to impose the penalty as mandatory under act. It is humbly submitted that either the applicant/ complainant be declared at fault and the appeal/complaint is dismissed or the PIO be penalized, the choice is clear as laid in act in sprit and words. By on, one hand allowing the appeal and accepting that The APIO was at wrong, on other hand not imposing penalty is not at all as per law which if decided by honorable commissioner can only put the public on unease and compelling to adopt the undesired, unwanted and costly affairs of writs in High Courts. The challenge to the decisions of CIC in High Court has been already done and all the ICs are well aware of the ultimate in law by virtue of their position and existence as ICs of different states IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Pronounced on: 28.04.2009, W.P. © 3845/2007 MUJIBUR REHMAN..... Petitioner Through: Ms. Girija Krishan Verma, Advocate. versus CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION..... Respondent Through: Ms. Yogmaya Agnihotri, Advocate for Resp-3&6. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT The incorporators of the RTI Act never estimated that the ICs will not enforce the law as incorporated by them through a legal procedure the best they could do. They might have desired that the erring officials would be penalized and that may become the lesson for others to keep the Law and order of the country in good health. But it is really pity of citizens of this country that the enforcers of Law, the ICs are not implying it by as its spirit and manner as it is laid. 8) The Honorable Commissioner listened my arguments, well noticed/observed and even then neither have recorded/mentioned in his order nor passed any order on this point that I have demanded a compensation for detriments suffered. The honorable IC has not decided this prayer in his order. It is very important and note-worthy that all the PIOs, APIOs and AAs of the PA are Government officials and those come to SICP at Chandigarh on government expense, government vehicles and on government salary. While the applicants/complainants come on their own expense and they also suffer a huge loss due to delay in information which may help them as well public to resolve their various difficulties. The applicants/complainant also spend a lot on correspondence, postal expenses, printing and traveling including their valuable man hours too which are some time more costly than expense of a PA in all. So they must be compensated, if they suffer due to errors of the PA. It is also a question raised by Sh. DS Kahlon, Hon’ble IC, during my arguments that the applicant pay only Rs.10/- and expect much more (this was not however recorded). This is not a legal logic. The fee and charges are fixed by Government after much thought and afterthought and there is some rational in those. Government does not charge a penny from below Poverty Line. That is not any obligation. It is the duty of state to provide protection and justice. There is no question of price and rates in it. The public is paying in indirect taxes the whole what the Govt. has in its exchequer. The total money, the PA is having is already indirectly paid by public, so if the expenses are made by PA, those are being expended from the money already paid by public. It is not making any loss to any individual officer of PA. To provide the duties and to make expenses doing those is a justified expense irrespective of the question that what is paid as fee and what is being spent. Law must run and prevail. You will appreciate if by some expense of a PA; public start plugging the unwanted and irregular expenses (worth million and trillions of Rupees), corrupt practice, and the reward of these expenses will be much more and much beneficial to society. Rather more if sec (4) is observed in true means, I think there will be great reduction in RTI Applications. It is the fault of PA that they are intentionally not observing the sec (4), how come they claim that these are being harassed, asked for voluminous information, expenses are too high, shortage of staff etc. etc. Truly, they do not want to expose the information because there are defects in their administration which are some time intentional and some time unintentional. Previously they were always playing Hide and Seek with public and when ultimately they came under RTI Act, now they are making hue and cry. It has become the modus operandi of majority of PIOs to play delaying tactics, harassment to applicant, ignoring applications and let the applicant go every pillar to post of AA and IC and at the time of appearance, they make a lame storey and furnish the information. Now who suffers, PA or Public? So compensation must be awarded, if the PA is erring. Or the applicant/ complainant must be penalized under provisions of CPC if available. 8 Request to CIC for review of the order 1.doc
  17. kabilan s

    Copies of judgment

    Hi, I wish to have a copy of judgement. Is is possible to get a certified copy of judicial proceeding viz., Judgment, deposition of witness, etc., [in respect of cases pending or disposed] through RTI Act pls. help me from Kabilan S
  18. What rules / sections bar review of own Order by first Appellate Authority in first Appeal ?
  19. Hello Friends, I have drafted two RTI's. These are going to be my first RTI's. Therefore, I would be greatful if the experienced RTI experts and practitioners can give me useful suggestions. Thanks in advance, Prakash aRTI_BSL_case.doc aRTI_BSL_general.doc
  20. CIC has issued an amendment to the CIC (Management) Regulation 2007 and withdrawn the right of the appellant or complainant to seek a review: http://www.cic.gov.in/CIC-Notifications/CIC-Legal-2007-006-Amdt.pdf The original Sec 23 of CIC (Management) Regulations 2007 read as: 23. Finality of Decision: (1) A decision or an order once pronounced by the Commission shall be final (2) An appellant or a complainant or a respondent may, however, make an application to the Chief Information Commissioner for special leave to appeal or review of a decision or order of the case and mention the grounds for such a request; (3) The Chief Information Commissioner, on receipt of such a request, may consider and decide the matter as he thinks fit. The amended Sec 23 will read as: 23. “Finality of Decision: A decision or an order once pronounced by the Commission shall be final.”
  21. In the attached order, IC AD has ordered that the Central Empowered Committee constituted by the Supreme Court is a Public Authority under the RTI act. http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/AD-12032009-17.pdf The term “Public Authority” as defined u/s 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 therefore, means any authority or body or Institution established or constituted by or under the Constitution. The Supreme Court of India is an Institution created under provisions of the Article 124 of the Constitution and is, therefore, a Public Authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act. Hence, any body or authority created under orders of a Public Authority; in this case, the Supreme Court of India, is also a Public Authority. The CEC being constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 09.05.2002 and 09.09.2002 and formally constituted vide a notification dated 17.09.02 issued by the Ministry of Environment & Forests under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 is by all means a Public Authority as defined under provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. The foregoing discussion thus decides the First Issue and it is evident that the CEC being a body created and accountable to a Public Authority as also being wholly financed by a Public Authority, owes its origin and existence to a Public Authority viz the Supreme Court of India and is beyond doubt in itself also a Public Authority.
  22. As per Minutes of Meeting of the CIC held on 15 July 2008, it has been decided to delete Sec 23(2) of the CIC (Management) Regulations. This deals with the subject of "review" of a CIC decision. Supplementary Item Professor Nigam, Legal Advisor to the Commission clarified that unless there is an “Error of law apparent on the face of record or an error of facts” review of the decisions of the commission cannot lie. Review will lie as per section 114 of C.P.C. Commission directed therefore to delete section 23 (2) of the CIC (Management) Regulations, 2007, since this had created some misapprehensions among citizens. The full Minutes are attached to this post. Minutes15072008.pdf
  23. What are the remedies available when the second appeal under RTI Act i.e. before CIC is dismissed and one is not satisfied with the order? Whether review and revision is allowed against the order of CIC ? whether appeal is allowed in High Court and order passed in second appeal by CIC and if so which HC it should be filed?
  24. Review possible only under special circumstances: CIC As Reported in Hindu on Sunday, March 2, 2008 New Delhi (PTI): The Central Information Commission (CIC) has held that it has limited powers to review its decision, which could only be done in special circumstances. The CIC held this while dismissing a review petition of Delhi-resident S C Agrawal, who had challenged its earlier order on his Right to Information plea wherein he sought from the Supreme Court information on citizen's right to complain about judicial misconduct. "This Commission draws its authority for limited review from Code of Civil Procedure and it has to exercise utmost care while granting review," Chief Information Commissioner Wajahat Habibullah said in a recent order. In response to Agrawal's initial application of May 18, 2006, the apex court had referred to its in-house procedure that speaks of actions to be initiated against judges in cases of their judicial misconduct. CIC, however, refused to entertain the specific query of Agrawal on the inclusivity of the Chief Justice of India under those rules, on the basis that the information was not sought in his RTI application. The applicant again approached the statutory body seeking a review of its decision of June 18, 2007 rejecting his plea. Noting that under its "limited review powers," there has to be some new evidence which was earlier not taken into consideration, the Commission said: "There has been no discovery of any new and important matter or evidence, which was not within our knowledge when the decision was taken." It, however, said that in case Agrawal was dissatisfied with its order, he could move a writ petition before the High Court or the Supreme Court. Full Decision is available here.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy