CIC REVIEWD ITS OWN DECISION IN 2006
1
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Block IV, 5th Floor, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi 110067
Decision No. 364/IC(A)/2006 dated November 21, 2006
Appeal No.CIC/MA/A/2006/0062
(Right to Information Act – Section 19)
Name of Appellant: Shri Rajnish Singh Chaudhary
Name of Public Authority: Union Public Service Commission
Dholpur House, Shahjehan Road
New Delhi-110 001.
Facts:
The appellant, Shri Rajnish Singh Choudhary approached the UPSC
under the Right to Information Act seeking certain information concerning
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Examination, 2002. The information
sought by him was the following:
(1) Marks awarded in interview and in written examination;
(2) Weightage as to interview and written examination;
(3) Cut-off marks for those selected under General and OBC
categories respectively;
(4) Total number of candidates interviewed;
(5) Name of Chairman and other members of the Board who
conducted the interview.
2. Since the information was not disclosed to the appellant in totality, the
appellant approached the Additional Secretary, UPSC, and First Appellate
Authority and thereafter, he preferred the Second Appeal before this Commission
(hereinafter referred to as CIC). After perusing the records, this Commission
vide its decision dated 1.9.2006 decided as under:
2
(i) Total marks scored by the appellant in written papers as well as
interview should be disclosed.
(ii) The procedure and the technique that are followed to determine the
cut-off point (or level of score of marks) to draw the line between
successful candidates and others should be disclosed for each
category of aspirants.
(iii) Since the action relating to determination and application of cut-off
point being an extremely critical factor in life and career of a person
should fall under public domain, the information sought should be
furnished since the matter is complete and over.
(iv) On the grievance that the Selection Committee was not properly
composed, there is no provision in the RTI Act for redress of such
grievance. However, in order to ensure that persons of high caliber
and integrity are associated with the process of selection, the
composition of such Boards/Committees should be made public
after the entire process of selection is over.
3. The decision of the Commission was communicated to the UPSC and
immediately thereafter, UPSC requested this Commission to reconsider its above
decision. In their Review Petition, the UPSC submitted that:
(i) No opportunity of hearing was given to the public authority, i.e., the
UPSC before the CIC decided the issue;
(ii) A single member of the CIC has decided the instant case whereas
such a matter involving confidentiality and integrity of the selection
process followed by the constitutional authority like the UPSC
merits consideration and decision by the Full Bench of the
Commission. The disclosure of cut-off marks may have grave
3
repercussions and may irreparably undermine the time tested
confidentiality, strength and efficacy of the selection process.
(iii) The disclosure of the information sought is bound to harm the
competitive position of the third party (the successful candidates
and candidates kept in the reserved panel) and as such, the
disclosure is exempted under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iv) Disclosure of the composition of the interview Board of the
Selection Committee may lead to an avoidable threat to an
expert/advisor.
(v) UPSC also submitted that the process of recruitment has significant
bearing on life and liberty of the citizens and that the issue involved
in the present case is of prime importance and of public nature.
4. It accordingly requested for recall of the earlier decision and to decide the
appeal de novo by the Full Commission after affording reasonable opportunity of
being heard including providing of oral hearing to the UPSC.
5. In pursuance of the request of the UPSC, this Commission decided to
hear the matter by its Full Bench. Since there were two other cases pending in
the Commission which were analogous in nature, the Commission decided to
hear all the cases on 16.10.2006.
6. The appellant was not present at the time of hearing on 16.10.2006. The
UPSC was represented by:
1. S/Shri S.K. Misra, Sr. Advocate
2. Anuj Rajput, Advocate
3. Biresh Kumar, Addl. Secy. UPSC
4. V.P. Singh, Joint Secy.
5. M.P. Singh, Joint Secy.
7. It was made clear that the Commission will first hear the concerned parties
as regards the admissibility of the review petition and decide the matter after
hearing the parties. It was also decided that the matter will be heard again on
4
23.10.2006 and that UPSC may in the meanwhile file written submission, if any,
as regards maintainability of the review petition by the Full Bench.
8. On 23.10.2006, the appellant was represented by learned counsel Shri
Sumit Kumar and the UPSC was represented by:
1. S/Shri S.K. Misra, Sr. Advocate
2. Anuj Rajput, Advocate
3. V.P. Singh, Jt. Secy.
4. M.P. Singh, Jt. Secy.
5. Biresh Kumar, Addl. Secy
6. A.K. Vishandas
7. Divya Prakash
9. The UPSC submitted their written submissions on 1.11.2006 and the
matter was finally heard on 3.11.2006. Mr. Misra, Senior Advocate, appearing on
behalf of the UPSC, submitted that in this particular case, UPSC never received
any notice of hearing when the decision was taken by the Commission. Even the
decision was also not communicated to the UPSC. They came to know about
the decision only from the CIC website.
10. Shri Misra also submitted that this is a clear case where principles of
natural justice have been violated and that the Commission is competent to
rehear the matter de novo. He pointed out that in this particular case, the
Commission has not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 5 of the
Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 which clearly
lays down that the Commission has to hear the parties before passing any
decision. He also referred to Rule 6 of the said Rules which mandates service of
notice on the concerned parties. The decision of the Commission was, therefore,
taken without any participation from the UPSC and behind its back. Under these
circumstances, the learned counsel requested that the matter be reheard after
giving UPSC a chance to present their case orally also.
5
11. Shri Tiwari, Information Commissioner requested the learned counsel
Shri Misra to enlighten the Commission as to what happens in a case like this
when there is allegation of serious violation of the principles of natural justice and
when there is no provision for review. Shri Misra submitted that in such a
situation, the Commission has to rehear the matter. He further said that when it
comes to compliance with principles of natural justice, rehearing can be done
even after the case has been decided.
12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that
since RTI Act does not provide for review of its own decision by the Commission,
review is not at all maintainable. In support of his arguments, learned counsel
cited the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Patel Narshi
Thakershi & ors. Vs. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji (AIR 1970 SC 1273):
“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 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 reviewed its
order. The question whether the Government’s order is correct or
valid in law does not arise for consideration in these proceedings so
long as that order is not set aside or declared void by a competent
authority. Hence the same cannot be ignored.”
13. The counsel on behalf of UPSC in reply submitted that since CIC is the
final authority and there is no other mechanism provided for by the RTI Act, CIC
is competent to review an order which is erroneous on the face of it or where
there had been violation of the principles of natural justice. In any case, CIC is
not barred from rehearing the matter because the earlier decision was arrived at
by the Commission without providing an opportunity of being heard to the UPSC.
14. The learned counsel, Shri Misra also submitted that this Commission has
earlier also reheard matters and has also reviewed its own decision and it can
adopt the same practice in this case too.
6
Decision & Reasons:
15. From the facts of the case, it is very clear that in this particular case, the
decision was taken without providing opportunity to the UPSC to present their
case. Neither was any notice given to them nor were their comments called. It is
also well settled that review of a decision is not a matter of a routine nature. If
that be so, no proceedings would ever be final. But the facts of this case are
clearly distinguishable from the case of `Patel Narshi Thakershi & ors. Vs. Shri
Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji - (AIR 1970 SC 1273)’. In this case, an order was
passed against the UPSC and no notice was given to that public authority about
the proceedings.
16. In another case (Grindlays Bank Ltd Vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal),
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
inheres in every court or tribunal. The following observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in this context are noteworthy:
“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 palpable 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 merit unless a statute
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.”
For reasons cited in the above ruling, it is this case which will have closer
applicability in the present case before the Commission.
7
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further clarified this position in Rajender
Singh Vs. Lt. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands & ors. (AIR 2006 SC 75). In
this case, decided on 4.10.2005, the Hon’ble Apex Court has focused on the
issue of the power of review being inherent in a given authority. While the
Supreme Court has had the Courts in mind in deciding this matter, its sweeping
logic also applies to other institutions tasked with the aspects of administration of
justice. The relevant portion of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is
reproduced below:
“The power, in our opinion, extends to correct all errors to prevent
miscarriage of justice. The courts should not hesitate to review its
own earlier order when there exists an error on the face of the
record and the interest of the justice so demands in appropriate
cases. The grievance of the appellant is that though several vital
issues were raised and documents placed, the High Court has not
considered the same in its review jurisdiction. In our opinion, the
High Court’s order in the review petition is not correct which really
necessitates our interference. ”
18. 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.
19. The crux of the argument in the Supreme Court’s second judgment cited
above was that the touchstone for assuming the power of review is not always
the presence of that specific power in the statute, but a considered view of a
statutory authority that without review there was an apprehension of miscarriage
of justice.
8
20. Insofar as the Central Information Commission (CIC) is concerned, the
Right to Information Act invests the Commission with a somewhat unique role.
The Commission is the last court of appeal, has the exclusive power to impose
penalties on defaulting Public Information Officers, and also has a role of
superintendence and direction of the information regime. It can direct public
authorities to take specific actions to promote the Right to Information regime.
Given these facts, to argue that the power of review does not inhere in the nature
of the CIC, itself would give scope to recurring miscarriage of justice wherever
the CIC may be in error. The power to correct through review, therefore, is
germane to promoting justice and to preventing its miscarriage.
21. It is, therefore, just and proper to conclude that in the light of the Apex
Court’s decisions and the unique, highly distinct set up of the RTI regime, the
absence of a statutory power to review cannot be treated as a bar on the CIC
assuming the power in the interest of preventing miscarriage of justice.
22. In this context, it is also worthwhile to mention that Hon’ble Delhi High
Court has also passed orders asking this Commission to reconsider the matter
after granting full hearing to all concerned parties likely to be affected by its
decision. In this case, this Commission has declared the three DISCOMs as
“public authority” under the Right to Information Act, although the three
DISCOMs were not party to the case and they were therefore not given an
opportunity of being heard. Following observations of the Hon’ble High Court in
its order dated 21.9.2006 are quite relevant insofar as the maintainability of
review by this Commission is concerned:
“I am of the opinion that since it is a common ground that the
petitioners were not issued notice or granted opportunity of hearing,
the Central Information Commission ought to re-consider the issue
after granting full hearing to all the concerned parties likely to be
affected by its decision.”
9
23. In the present case before Information Commissioner Prof. M.M. Ansari,
as brought out in the preceding paragraphs, UPSC was not given a hearing nor
was it given the opportunity to file its written averments before a decision was
taken. Without going into the merits of this decision, it would be fair to conclude
that there is an overhand of the possibility of miscarriage of justice, which can be
corrected by reviewing the earlier decision.
Decision Notice:
In view of the observations made above, the Commission decides to give
an opportunity to the UPSC to present their case as to why information requested
by the appellant be not furnished to him. The matter will be heard and decided
by Professor M.M. Ansari, Information Commissioner on 28.11.2006 at 11 AM.
Notices may be issued by the Registry accordingly.
The decision agreed to by the Full Bench is announced by the Chief Information
Commissioner on this the 21st day of November 2006.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
21/11/’06
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of
this Commission.
(L.C. Singhi)
Addl. Registrar
1
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Block IV, 5th Floor, Old JNU Campus
New Delhi 110067
Decision No. 364/IC(A)/2006 dated November 21, 2006
Appeal No.CIC/MA/A/2006/0062
(Right to Information Act – Section 19)
Name of Appellant: Shri Rajnish Singh Chaudhary
Name of Public Authority: Union Public Service Commission
Dholpur House, Shahjehan Road
New Delhi-110 001.
Facts:
The appellant, Shri Rajnish Singh Choudhary approached the UPSC
under the Right to Information Act seeking certain information concerning
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Examination, 2002. The information
sought by him was the following:
(1) Marks awarded in interview and in written examination;
(2) Weightage as to interview and written examination;
(3) Cut-off marks for those selected under General and OBC
categories respectively;
(4) Total number of candidates interviewed;
(5) Name of Chairman and other members of the Board who
conducted the interview.
2. Since the information was not disclosed to the appellant in totality, the
appellant approached the Additional Secretary, UPSC, and First Appellate
Authority and thereafter, he preferred the Second Appeal before this Commission
(hereinafter referred to as CIC). After perusing the records, this Commission
vide its decision dated 1.9.2006 decided as under:
2
(i) Total marks scored by the appellant in written papers as well as
interview should be disclosed.
(ii) The procedure and the technique that are followed to determine the
cut-off point (or level of score of marks) to draw the line between
successful candidates and others should be disclosed for each
category of aspirants.
(iii) Since the action relating to determination and application of cut-off
point being an extremely critical factor in life and career of a person
should fall under public domain, the information sought should be
furnished since the matter is complete and over.
(iv) On the grievance that the Selection Committee was not properly
composed, there is no provision in the RTI Act for redress of such
grievance. However, in order to ensure that persons of high caliber
and integrity are associated with the process of selection, the
composition of such Boards/Committees should be made public
after the entire process of selection is over.
3. The decision of the Commission was communicated to the UPSC and
immediately thereafter, UPSC requested this Commission to reconsider its above
decision. In their Review Petition, the UPSC submitted that:
(i) No opportunity of hearing was given to the public authority, i.e., the
UPSC before the CIC decided the issue;
(ii) A single member of the CIC has decided the instant case whereas
such a matter involving confidentiality and integrity of the selection
process followed by the constitutional authority like the UPSC
merits consideration and decision by the Full Bench of the
Commission. The disclosure of cut-off marks may have grave
3
repercussions and may irreparably undermine the time tested
confidentiality, strength and efficacy of the selection process.
(iii) The disclosure of the information sought is bound to harm the
competitive position of the third party (the successful candidates
and candidates kept in the reserved panel) and as such, the
disclosure is exempted under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
(iv) Disclosure of the composition of the interview Board of the
Selection Committee may lead to an avoidable threat to an
expert/advisor.
(v) UPSC also submitted that the process of recruitment has significant
bearing on life and liberty of the citizens and that the issue involved
in the present case is of prime importance and of public nature.
4. It accordingly requested for recall of the earlier decision and to decide the
appeal de novo by the Full Commission after affording reasonable opportunity of
being heard including providing of oral hearing to the UPSC.
5. In pursuance of the request of the UPSC, this Commission decided to
hear the matter by its Full Bench. Since there were two other cases pending in
the Commission which were analogous in nature, the Commission decided to
hear all the cases on 16.10.2006.
6. The appellant was not present at the time of hearing on 16.10.2006. The
UPSC was represented by:
1. S/Shri S.K. Misra, Sr. Advocate
2. Anuj Rajput, Advocate
3. Biresh Kumar, Addl. Secy. UPSC
4. V.P. Singh, Joint Secy.
5. M.P. Singh, Joint Secy.
7. It was made clear that the Commission will first hear the concerned parties
as regards the admissibility of the review petition and decide the matter after
hearing the parties. It was also decided that the matter will be heard again on
4
23.10.2006 and that UPSC may in the meanwhile file written submission, if any,
as regards maintainability of the review petition by the Full Bench.
8. On 23.10.2006, the appellant was represented by learned counsel Shri
Sumit Kumar and the UPSC was represented by:
1. S/Shri S.K. Misra, Sr. Advocate
2. Anuj Rajput, Advocate
3. V.P. Singh, Jt. Secy.
4. M.P. Singh, Jt. Secy.
5. Biresh Kumar, Addl. Secy
6. A.K. Vishandas
7. Divya Prakash
9. The UPSC submitted their written submissions on 1.11.2006 and the
matter was finally heard on 3.11.2006. Mr. Misra, Senior Advocate, appearing on
behalf of the UPSC, submitted that in this particular case, UPSC never received
any notice of hearing when the decision was taken by the Commission. Even the
decision was also not communicated to the UPSC. They came to know about
the decision only from the CIC website.
10. Shri Misra also submitted that this is a clear case where principles of
natural justice have been violated and that the Commission is competent to
rehear the matter de novo. He pointed out that in this particular case, the
Commission has not followed the procedure prescribed under Rule 5 of the
Central Information Commission (Appeal Procedure) Rules, 2005 which clearly
lays down that the Commission has to hear the parties before passing any
decision. He also referred to Rule 6 of the said Rules which mandates service of
notice on the concerned parties. The decision of the Commission was, therefore,
taken without any participation from the UPSC and behind its back. Under these
circumstances, the learned counsel requested that the matter be reheard after
giving UPSC a chance to present their case orally also.
5
11. Shri Tiwari, Information Commissioner requested the learned counsel
Shri Misra to enlighten the Commission as to what happens in a case like this
when there is allegation of serious violation of the principles of natural justice and
when there is no provision for review. Shri Misra submitted that in such a
situation, the Commission has to rehear the matter. He further said that when it
comes to compliance with principles of natural justice, rehearing can be done
even after the case has been decided.
12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that
since RTI Act does not provide for review of its own decision by the Commission,
review is not at all maintainable. In support of his arguments, learned counsel
cited the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Patel Narshi
Thakershi & ors. Vs. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji (AIR 1970 SC 1273):
“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 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 reviewed its
order. The question whether the Government’s order is correct or
valid in law does not arise for consideration in these proceedings so
long as that order is not set aside or declared void by a competent
authority. Hence the same cannot be ignored.”
13. The counsel on behalf of UPSC in reply submitted that since CIC is the
final authority and there is no other mechanism provided for by the RTI Act, CIC
is competent to review an order which is erroneous on the face of it or where
there had been violation of the principles of natural justice. In any case, CIC is
not barred from rehearing the matter because the earlier decision was arrived at
by the Commission without providing an opportunity of being heard to the UPSC.
14. The learned counsel, Shri Misra also submitted that this Commission has
earlier also reheard matters and has also reviewed its own decision and it can
adopt the same practice in this case too.
6
Decision & Reasons:
15. From the facts of the case, it is very clear that in this particular case, the
decision was taken without providing opportunity to the UPSC to present their
case. Neither was any notice given to them nor were their comments called. It is
also well settled that review of a decision is not a matter of a routine nature. If
that be so, no proceedings would ever be final. But the facts of this case are
clearly distinguishable from the case of `Patel Narshi Thakershi & ors. Vs. Shri
Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji - (AIR 1970 SC 1273)’. In this case, an order was
passed against the UPSC and no notice was given to that public authority about
the proceedings.
16. In another case (Grindlays Bank Ltd Vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal),
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
inheres in every court or tribunal. The following observations of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in this context are noteworthy:
“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 palpable 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 merit unless a statute
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.”
For reasons cited in the above ruling, it is this case which will have closer
applicability in the present case before the Commission.
7
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further clarified this position in Rajender
Singh Vs. Lt. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands & ors. (AIR 2006 SC 75). In
this case, decided on 4.10.2005, the Hon’ble Apex Court has focused on the
issue of the power of review being inherent in a given authority. While the
Supreme Court has had the Courts in mind in deciding this matter, its sweeping
logic also applies to other institutions tasked with the aspects of administration of
justice. The relevant portion of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is
reproduced below:
“The power, in our opinion, extends to correct all errors to prevent
miscarriage of justice. The courts should not hesitate to review its
own earlier order when there exists an error on the face of the
record and the interest of the justice so demands in appropriate
cases. The grievance of the appellant is that though several vital
issues were raised and documents placed, the High Court has not
considered the same in its review jurisdiction. In our opinion, the
High Court’s order in the review petition is not correct which really
necessitates our interference. ”
18. 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.
19. The crux of the argument in the Supreme Court’s second judgment cited
above was that the touchstone for assuming the power of review is not always
the presence of that specific power in the statute, but a considered view of a
statutory authority that without review there was an apprehension of miscarriage
of justice.
8
20. Insofar as the Central Information Commission (CIC) is concerned, the
Right to Information Act invests the Commission with a somewhat unique role.
The Commission is the last court of appeal, has the exclusive power to impose
penalties on defaulting Public Information Officers, and also has a role of
superintendence and direction of the information regime. It can direct public
authorities to take specific actions to promote the Right to Information regime.
Given these facts, to argue that the power of review does not inhere in the nature
of the CIC, itself would give scope to recurring miscarriage of justice wherever
the CIC may be in error. The power to correct through review, therefore, is
germane to promoting justice and to preventing its miscarriage.
21. It is, therefore, just and proper to conclude that in the light of the Apex
Court’s decisions and the unique, highly distinct set up of the RTI regime, the
absence of a statutory power to review cannot be treated as a bar on the CIC
assuming the power in the interest of preventing miscarriage of justice.
22. In this context, it is also worthwhile to mention that Hon’ble Delhi High
Court has also passed orders asking this Commission to reconsider the matter
after granting full hearing to all concerned parties likely to be affected by its
decision. In this case, this Commission has declared the three DISCOMs as
“public authority” under the Right to Information Act, although the three
DISCOMs were not party to the case and they were therefore not given an
opportunity of being heard. Following observations of the Hon’ble High Court in
its order dated 21.9.2006 are quite relevant insofar as the maintainability of
review by this Commission is concerned:
“I am of the opinion that since it is a common ground that the
petitioners were not issued notice or granted opportunity of hearing,
the Central Information Commission ought to re-consider the issue
after granting full hearing to all the concerned parties likely to be
affected by its decision.”
9
23. In the present case before Information Commissioner Prof. M.M. Ansari,
as brought out in the preceding paragraphs, UPSC was not given a hearing nor
was it given the opportunity to file its written averments before a decision was
taken. Without going into the merits of this decision, it would be fair to conclude
that there is an overhand of the possibility of miscarriage of justice, which can be
corrected by reviewing the earlier decision.
Decision Notice:
In view of the observations made above, the Commission decides to give
an opportunity to the UPSC to present their case as to why information requested
by the appellant be not furnished to him. The matter will be heard and decided
by Professor M.M. Ansari, Information Commissioner on 28.11.2006 at 11 AM.
Notices may be issued by the Registry accordingly.
The decision agreed to by the Full Bench is announced by the Chief Information
Commissioner on this the 21st day of November 2006.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
21/11/’06
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of
this Commission.
(L.C. Singhi)
Addl. Registrar
