REVIEW IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER CIC JUDGEMENT OR TRIBUNAL JUDGEMENT FOR ERROR ETC.

REVIEW IS  PERMISSIBLE  UNDER CIC JUDGEMENT OR TRIBUNAL JUDGEMENT FOR ERROR ETC.

REFERENCES :->>>

It is a well-established principle of law that power to review its own orders should have been specifically conferred by law, before a Court can exercise it. However, in certain circumstances, a limited power to correct errors apparent on the face of a case may be presumed to vest inherently in judicial and quasi-judicial forums. 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.. Reference here may also be made to the decision of the 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.

*********

There is no provision in RTI Act by which FAA can review his own decision. However there are some exceptions for all reviews as stated above. Hence if there is procedural infirmity [say appellant not given opportunity of being heard] or error of facts etc any authority can review its own decision even if there is no express provision in the act.

 

appears stopped review except in cases falling under "error apparent on the face of the record"- a condition stipulated in Rule 47(1)(c) CPC

 ********

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

Furthermore, the Full Bench in R. R. Patel’s Case was constituted to reconsider two decisions dated 06/09/2006 of Professor M. M. Ansari, then Information Commissioner. As described above, the issues to be reconsidered by the Full Bench included whether the claim of RBI for exemption under Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act in respect of inspection of reports could be held justified. The Full Bench relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Grindlays’ Bank v. Central Government Industrial

Tribunal AIR 1981 SC 606 and noted that when a review is sought due to a procedural defect, the inadvertent error committed by a tribunal must be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its power and such power is inherent in every court or tribunal. On this basis, the Full Bench  proceeded to review the decisions of Professor M. M. Ansari, then Information Commissioner

***********

What now I comprehend is that IC first orally ordered disclosure in open court under RTI Act. Subsequently her attention was drawn to the fact that if any department has its own rules for accessing information, the information seeker should avail of that prescribed route and not RTI. In fact this is what has been pronounced by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in judgment delivered on: 01.06.2012 in W.P.(C) 11271/2009- REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES & ORS versus DHARMENDRA KUMAR GARG.

If this is true, Ld IC has perhaps corrected her error [due to lack of knowledge of above judgement] between oral and written orders. In that case we should not take disadvantage of bonafide error which was otherwise defying judgement of HC.There is possibility that representative of public authority may not be knowing such judgement at the time of hearing and his attention would have been drawn later on which he would have communicated to Ld IC.

As for returning information, I do not think Ld IC can order it, once it is supplied. In this case it is not wrong that information was supplied, what is at dispute is procedure followed {RTI or departmental procedure} for supply of information.

I understand that this judgement of HC is being challenged in SC.

The implication of this judgement is that:

1. Any information that is in public domain or proactively disclosed cannot be accessed under RTI Act.

2. Any information that is accessible under any other law or mechanism, cannot be accessed under RTI Act. Citizen has to follow that law/mechanism only.

3. Unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority, it is not accessible under the RTI Act.

4. IC must take into account earlier decisions of other ICs on the same matter brought to his notice and in case he disagrees, the matter may be referred to larger bench of CIC/SIC.

5. Information Commissions are not Court of Law.

6. ICs should maintain judicial discipline.

7. RTI Act is a general law [not special law].

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

There is an option under Section 19(9) of the RTI Act, for review. However, in your review application, you should clearly highlight the procedural error as well as other strong legal basis like violation of the principles of natural justice (if any), so that your review petition will be considered by SIC. I hereby attach a decision of CIC, wherein review was allowed. Use the crucial points for your review application
vsprajan.

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

http://cic.gov.in/StudyReports/PRIA-AnalysisOf-CIC-Judgements.pdf

Review of a decision delivered by  a public authority

Judgment:

In the Review Application No.1/2006, dated 16/5/2006, before the Central Information Commission, the CIC laid down the following important conditions, which

must be satisfied, for review of a decision delivered by the PIO of a  public authority:

ÿ There is a technical error in the decision

ÿ There was an omission to consider certain

material facts relevant for the decision

ÿ The appellant was not given an opportunity of being heard

ÿ The PIO has not given enclosed relevant supporting do cuments in his comments furnished to the Central Information Commission (CIC

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

MANY STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION ALSO MENTION THE FACT OF REVIEW FOR ERROR

SEE UP STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION >>

Review of the order of the Commission

A party to any proceeding before the Commission, considering itself aggrieved by any

order  of  the  Commission  based  on  an  error  apparent on  the face  of the  record,  may

submi

t an application for review of such order to the Chief Information Commissioner

or  the  Information  Commissioner  who  passed  that  order.  The  Commission,  before

passing  any  order  on  such  review  application,  shall  issue  notice  to  all  parties  to  the

proceeding to  give  them  an  opportunity  of  being  heard.  If  the  Commission  is  of  the

view that an error apparent on the face of the record is established, it may review the

order to meet the ends of justice

http://upsic.up.nic.in/rule2015.pdf

**********

SEE THIS CASE ALSO ON CIC WEBSITE >>>

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

…..

F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000100

Dated, the 16th September, 2009.

PARTIES TO THE CASE:

Review-Petitioners : Shri Nihar Ranjan Banerjee

Chief Vigilance Officer

&

Shri Bidya Nand Mishra

Deputy General Manager (Vigilance) /

Tech. Secretary to CVO

Coal India Limited

Appellant

: Shri M.N. Ghosh

Public authority

: Coal India Limited

This second-appeal by Shri M.N. Ghosh was decided through

Commission’s order dated 25.05.2009. The third-party-respondents,

viz. the Vigilance Officers of the Coal India Limited approached the

Commission through a review-petition dated 25.06.2009 requesting that

parts of the Commission’s order needed to be reviewed as, according to

the review-petitioners, there was an error manifest in the face of the

order, i.e. it not incorporating some of the points made at the hearing