REVIEW OF CIC DECISION PERMISSIOBLE, INFORMATION COMMISSIONER ITSELF TOLD IN DECISION

REVIEW OF CIC DECISION PERMISSIOBLE, INFORMATION COMMISSIONER ITSELF TOLD IN DECISION

In a very strange order of the CIC, one of the IC's has granted himself the power to review based on certain Supreme Court orders.

On the other hand we have the Chief Information Commissioner withdrawing the right to review.

Is it that PA's/PIO's/FAA's have the right to review but appellants/complainants do not have it ?

The arguments given in the review petition are also strange.

They seem to be an afterthought to the CIC's own order.

What was the PIO doing when he replied to the RTI Application ?

What was the FAA doing when he passed his order ?

What was the IC doing when he passed his order ?

Why weren't the same arguments put forward at the time of the original hearing ? What was the representative of the PA doing at that time ?

This way, PA's will use all opportunities at their disposal to have such "after thoughts".

This particular IC has also been hearing cases of various Coal Companies/Organisations ever since he joined CIC. Members might also be interested in reading

some of his orders related to Coal.

The order is attached to this post.

http://cic.gov.in/CIC-Orders/AT-16092009-06.pdf

Is there a possibility of review or not ?

How many applications for review by the appellant/complaint have been ever admitted by the CIC ?

How many applications for review by the public authority have been admitted for review ?

Someone should file a RTI application with CIC and find out.

***********************

11. The question whether the Commission has the power to review its own decision was elaborately discussed in Appeal No.CIC/MA/ A/2006/00622 (Rajnish Singh

Chaudhary Vs. Union Public Service Commission). In this case, the Commission has relied on the decisions of the Apex Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi & Ors.

Vs. Pradyumanshighji Arjunsinghji ⎯ (AIR 1970 SC 1273) and Rajendra Singh Vs. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands & Ors. (AIR 2006 SC 75) and had observed as

under:-

“The net upshot of these two decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court is that while in substantive matters there may arguably be no review. 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, the absence

of a provision for review shall not be a bar on a given statutory authority assuming that power. In other words, silence of law in regard to review does not

prohibit a statutory authority from undertaking review in specific given circumstances.”

The above item in your attachment clears any doubt on review. The Supreme Court has insisted that even if there is NO any expressive review option available

in law, that does not prohibit any statuatory authority from undertaking review.

In CIC management rules, review is an option. Hnece, when there is an apparent error in judgement, NO CIC can refuse to review and if he does NOT, he goes

against the spirit of Supreme Court's observation which is ILLEGAL.

But some CICs still review their decisions without any inhibition. (Pl see CIC decisions)

*****************

In the Narshi Thakershi's (http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1992752/)case SC had oberved :

"It is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. No

provision in the Act was brought to our notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. If the Government had

no power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate could not have"

Following the ratio of Thakershi Narshi, SC in , GRINDLAYS BANK LTD. Vs. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ORS

(http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1136885/). ,one of the landmark judgments on review, explained as under:

The expression 'review' is used in two distinct senses, namely (1) a procedural review which is either inherent or implied in a court or Tribunal to set

aside a palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension by it, and (2) a review on merits when the error sought to be corrected is one of law and is

apparent on the face of the record. It is in the latter sense that the Court in Narshi Thakershi's case held that no review lies on merits unless a status

specifically provides for it. Obviously 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 process, and such power inheres in every court or Tribunal

Therefore, conclusion emerges , as Gujarat HC has observed in Atulbhai Balabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat (http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/640655/) on 12

May, 1999

12. In view of the above discussion, it is held that while the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal exercising the powers of revision under Section 76 of the Bombay

Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 does not have the power of reviewing its own decision on the basis of any statutory provisions contained in the said

Act or in the Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1957, the Tribunal does have the inherent power of procedural review as explained by a Division Bench of this

Court in the case of Ram Kirpal vs. Union of India & Anr. 39(3) GLR 1892.

In nutshell

(1) RTI Act does not contain any provisions for review (however word "review" is mentioned in Section 7 and 10)

(2) therefore review on merits is not possible
 (3) however, CIC/SIC has inherent power to review on procedural defects