Sunday, April 19, 2015

IN 2009 CIC REVIEWED ITS OWN DECISION WHILE IN 2008 IT REMOVED THIS POSSIBILITIES

IN 2009 CIC REVIEWED ITS OWN DECISION WHILE IN 2008 IT REMOVED THIS POSSIBILITIES

AT-16092009-06.doc
Page 1 of 9
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
on 05.05.2009 on behalf of the review-petitioners.
2. The review-petition was taken on record and through
Commission’s notice dated 25.06.2009, a hearing was held on
29.07.2009 through videoconferencing (VC). The review-petitioners and
the appellant, Shri M.N.Ghosh were present at the NIC VC facility at
Kolkata. Commission conducted the hearing from its New Delhi office.
3. The review-petition is in the matter of Commission’s order dated
25.05.2009 in Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000100, relating to appellant’s
following queries:-
“ii) Copies of car hire bills since his joining till date.
iii) Copies of overtime bills for company owned car being used
by CVO and
AT-16092009-06.doc
Page 2 of 9
iv) Copy of TA bills of Sri B N MISHRA Dy.GM (Vig) Coal India
Limited for his tours to Delhi and Nagpur from 1.1.2007 till
date.”
4. The review-petitioners have argued that while upholding the
demand for disclosure of the information listed above on the basis of
Commission’s decision in G.R. Singh Vs. NPCC Limited; Appeal
No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00479, dated 14.02.2007 and on the ground that
such information could not be withheld from disclosure as it related to
a charge made on the budget of the public authority, Commission failed
to factor in the specific set of circumstances of the present
review-petitioners and their colleagues. It is the review-petitioners’
argument that if the specific averments made by the review-petitioners
on their behalf and on behalf of their colleague were considered, the
decision of the Commission would have been different.
5. These grounds, according to the review-petitioners, specific to
the requested information are as follows:-
Subject: Copies of car hire bills since review-petitioner’s
(Shri Nihar Ranjan Banerjee’s) joining in the present
office, till date and of overtime bills for a company owned
car being used by CVO IE the review petitioner.
The review petitioner has stated “…… that the disclosure of the
information may endanger the physical safety of the concerned
person. His location / movements cannot be revealed for which
the State has assigned him security cover on advice of State
police and CBI. Moreover, an investigation in the matter is also
going on. Besides, this relates to personal information the
disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion in the
privacy of the concerned person and does not have any overriding
public interest. As such providing the information is exempted
under Section 8(1)(g), 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005”
Subject: TA bills of Shri B.N. Mishra, Dy. GM (Vigilance), CIL, on his
tours to Delhi and Nagpur from 01.01.2007 till date.
On this subject, review-petitioners have the following submissions
to make:-
AT-16092009-06.doc
Page 3 of 9
“…… the disclosure of the information may endanger the physical
safety of the concerned person. As such providing the
information is exempted under Sec. 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005.”
6. Review-petitioners have further submitted the following for
Commission’s consideration:-
“(iv) Apart from filing the written submission it was respectfully
apprised by the representing vigilance official of CIL, orally
during hearing by the Hon’ble Vigilance Commissioner on 5th May,
2009 that the information sought for by the appellant was
intended to intimidate and cause embarrassment to the CVO, CIL
and Dy.GM (Vigilance), CIL who investigated a complaint against
the appellant when he served as Chief Legal Manager in CIL and
the investigation led to unearthing documentary evidence against
him which led to the discovery that he (appellant) entered in the
employment of CIL at the relevant period in 1974 without having
requisite qualification of Bachelor’s degree in law as per the
then advertised norms and had thus secured employment in the
Govt. PSE fraudulently as alleged in the complaint against him
received and investigated by the above mentioned vigilance
officials of CIL. It was also respectfully submitted that the tours
undertaken by the CVO and Dy. GM (Vigilance) viz. Shri N.R.
Banerjee and Shri B.N. Mishra during the period covered in the
application under RTI Act were for the purpose of vigilance
investigation and in relation to enforcement of law. The
applicant being highly agitated of the on-going investigation
against him, attempted to track the movement of investigating
officials named above by seeking information about movement of
said vigilance officials by raising aforesaid queries under RTI Act
2005 so that he may reach to the source of information and
jeopardize / influence the evidence apart from creating an
atmosphere which would endanger the life or physical safety of
the said vigilance officials and source of information and
assistance given in confidence for investigation and law
enforcement. It was further submitted that as an outcome of
the vigilance investigation, disciplinary proceedings was initiated
as advised by Central Vigilance Commission by the Disciplinary
Authority viz., Chairman, CIL against the appellant while he was
in service at the post of Chief Legal Manager and that the
appellant moved a writ petition at Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta
to stall the disciplinary proceedings against him and the matter
is sub-judice.
AT-16092009-06.doc
Page 4 of 9
(v) In view of the aforesaid facts it is quite apparent that the
information sought for by the appellant was not intended to
serve any public purpose and, therefore, merited, exemption
under Sec. 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005. Further providing of
information about the local movements of CVO, CIL at Kolkata by
asking for the logbook of vehicle and overtime bill of car driver
and the tour performed by Dy. GM (Vigilance), CIL to out stations
were in the course of investigation of complaints of corruption
against employees including the appellant and for the allied
issues related to investigation of all such complaints dealt during
the relevant period which are still in process of investigation and
has not reached to its logical end and revelation of which would
expose the source of information which merits exemption under

Sec. 8(1)(g), 8(1)(h) of RTI Act 2005.
(3) …………………..that the direction as contained under para-7
of the aforesaid decision dated 25th May, 2009 of the Hon’ble
Information Commissioner to disclose the information concerning
medical bills severing from it such details as may be considered
personal and private to the officer has been complied with.
Copy of information transmitted to the CPIO, CIL in compliance
of the said direction of the Hon’ble Information Commissioner is
marked as Annexure-6 [sic].
(4) ……………..that the citation of the Commission’s decision in
G.R. Singh Vs. NPCC Limited; Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00479;
Date of Decision: 14.02.2007 as mentioned at para-8 of the
decision dated 25th May, 2009 in the instant case is not relevant
to the context in as much as that the grounds considered at para-
6 & 7 of the said citation marked as Annexure-7 [sic] deal with
disclosure of TA bills of public authority in general and which do
not relate to tour performed by the investigating officer (in this
case the said vigilance officials of CIL) in relation to investigation
of complaints of corruption against the employees of PSE who are
the alleged public authorities as per the complaints. Therefore,
disclosure of tour performed by the investigating officer to
unearth material evidence and collect source information in the
interest of investigation would impede the process of
investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders in the
matter explained at para-5 above and, therefore, merits
exemption under Sec. 8(1)(g) & (h) of RTI Act 2005.
AT-16092009-06.doc
Page 5 of 9
(5) …………..that in view of the facts stated in paras above the
direction mentioned at para-8 of the impugned decision in
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/00100 dated 25th May, 2009 to allow
disclosure of information sought as referred at 4(ii), Para-4(iii) &
para-4(iv) of the said decision dated 25th May, 2009 stated above,
merits reconsiderations and review by the Hon’ble Information
Commissioner
.”

7. It is, therefore, the request of the review-petitioners that
“the Hon’ble Information Commissioner be pleased to review the
decision as at para-8 in F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/00100 dated 25th
May, 2009 with regard to queries contained in appellant’s
RTI-application referred at para 4(ii), 4(iii) & 4(iv) of the said
decision dated 25th May, 2009 and be pleased to grant exemption
under Sec. 8(1)(g), 8(1)(h) & 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act 2005.
It is further prayed that the Hon’ble Information Commissioner
be pleased to pass an interim order staying to provide the
information sought for as per para 4(ii), 4(iii) & 4(iv) of the said
decision dated 25th May, 2009 till the final disposal of the instant
review application.”
8. During the videoconferencing hearing, appellant, Shri M.N. Ghosh
(in Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000100) countered the averments of the
review-petitioners and stated that these were attempts to conceal
information, whose disclosure the review-petitioners were aware,
would show them in a false light and discomfit them. He stated that
there was unmistakable public purpose in disclosing such information
and a plea that this would somehow personally impact the
review-petitioners or affect their capacity to work efficiently and
purposefully, is nothing more than a convenient conjecture, and a facile
argument unsubstantiated by any evidence.
9. Appellant also questioned the review-petitioners’ right to seek
the review of the Commission’s order and the powers of the Commission
as to initiate such review. He argued that the RTI Act gave no such
powers to the Commission
.
Decision:
10. I will first deal with appellant’s case that review-petition should
not be allowed on the ground that power of review of its order by the
Commission is not provided in the RTI Act.
AT-16092009-06.doc
Page 6 of 9
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.”

12. As has been observed in the above case, the Central Information
Commission has been assigned somewhat a unique role under the Right
to Information Act, 2005. 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. 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.

The issue raised by the appellant is decided accordingly.
13. On the subject of review-petitioners’ claim that certain material
facts urged by them and their colleagues as third-parties in the above
second-appeal proceedings were omitted in the consideration of the
material for decision by the Commission, I noticed that although there
was an indirect reference to these facts in Commission’s order, they
were not directly used for determining the disclosure obligation for the
queries listed in paragraph 3 above.
AT-16092009-06.doc
Page 7 of 9
14. During the hearing, it was submitted by the review-petitioners
that the type of information which appellant had requested has always
been held ⎯ insofar as it related to the officers of the Vigilance
Department ⎯ as confidential within the meaning of Section 124 of the
Indian Evidence Act. There were plausible reasons for this. Such
officers perform sensitive duties and had to engage on a regular basis
with their sources and witnesses sometimes at odd hours. This
necessitated that records dealing with their movements and the
movement of their vehicles were kept confidential ⎯ often overtly and
always impliedly. This was done in public interest in order to ensure
that such officers carried-out their sensitive assignments somewhat
insulated from prying eyes of interested parties and those hostile
towards the officers. Almost every single employee of the public
authority these vigilance officers investigated, turned hostile towards
them and quite a few of such employees attempted to inflict harm on
them, either directly through physical threats and intimidation, or
indirectly through innuendos and threats of besmirching their
reputation by false propaganda. Tour details and use of vehicles
frequently are tools in the hands of such employees to carry-out their
vendetta against the officers of the Vigilance Department. The
pressure of false propaganda is such that the officers may feel
persecuted even if finally they come out fully vindicated. It is in public
interest that ordinarily information relating to tour details of such
officers is not allowed to pass into the hands of employees who may
have reasons to be hostile ⎯ even inimical ⎯ towards these Vigilance
Officers. Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act was designed for such
contingencies and is entirely consistent with the provisions of RTI Act
(Section 11(1)).
15. Now, while the RTI Act, no-doubt, takes precedence over the
Indian Evidence Act in a matter of inconsistency between their
provisions, when the provisions of two Acts are consistent, the RTI Act
and the Indian Evidence Act provisions should be harmoniously
construed.
16. I find that there is ample consistency between Section 124 of the
Indian Evidence Act and Section 11(1) of the RTI Act read with Section
2(n) of the same Act.
17. Section 11(1) of the RTI Act stipulates consultation with
third-parties in matters where an information sought to be disclosed
relates to that third-party and is treated by that third-party as
confidential. Section 2(n) of the RTI Act states that a public authority
AT-16092009-06.doc
Page 8 of 9
can itself be a third-party in respect of the information it holds and
when such information is confidential information, that public authority
acquires all entitlements guaranteed to a third-party under Section
11(1) of the Act, viz. the right to be consulted regarding disclosure of
the information and the right to demand that the information may not
be disclosed as “public interest in disclosure” does not “outweigh in
importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such
third-party”. In other words, an information coming within the scope
of Section 11(1) should be authorized to be disclosed only in public
interest.
18. In the context of the above, it needs to be examined whether the
information now requested to be divulged by the appellant and
contested by the review-petitioners should at-all be disclosed.
19. I agree with the review-petitioners, given the specific
circumstances and conditions surrounding the set of information now
requested by the appellant, viz. tour details, vehicle logbooks, purpose
of visits, overtime payments, etc., no public interest is served by their
disclosure. On the contrary, there is a distinct possibility that
disclosure of this information will compromise the functioning of the
Vigilance Officers ⎯ the review-petitioners ⎯ and not only expose
them to physical risks and intimidations, but impair their ability to
carry-out their sensitive assignments. Certain level of protection needs
to be given to such officers even in respect of disclosure of ordinary
looking information for, what is seemingly ordinary, assumes the
characteristics of the extraordinary in specific circumstances and
conditions, which according to me, are present in this case.
20. It is my view that the requested information should be declined
within the meaning of Section 11(1) of the RTI Act.
21. I noticed that, apart from the above, the review-petitioners have
also urged the Commission to examine the submissions made by them in
terms of Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act. I find merit in the submission.
As has been explained by the review-petitioners, in the circumstances
and the atmosphere in which they work and the specificity of their
sensitive assignment, the requested information had the potentiality of
endangering the officers’ life and their physical safety, apart from
leading to identification of the source of information or assistance given
in confidence for discharge of their law-enforcement functions as
Vigilance Officers.
AT-16092009-06.doc
Page 9 of 9
22. It is true that, as now urged by the review-petitioners, these
points made by the review-petitioners’ rep. during hearing on
05.05.2009, were not fully reflected on by the Commission in making its
decision dated 25.05.2009. I agree that given the context of this case,
there was an error on the face of the order made on 25.05.2009, which
needed to be corrected in the interest of justice and in the interest of
providing protection to officers who work in trying conditions in
handling sensitive assignments such as vigilance duties.
23. I, therefore, order that in partial modification of my order dated
25.05.2009 in Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000100, information as listed at paragraph 3 above shall not be disclosed to the appellant.
24. Review-petition is disposed of accordingly.
25. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER



CIC REVIEWD ITS OWN DECISION IN 2006

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

केंद्रीय सूचना आयोग ने रिवु का सिस्टम ख़त्म कर दिया था , लेकिन रिव्यू की संभावनाएं मौजूद हैं

केंद्रीय सूचना आयोग ने रिवु का सिस्टम ख़त्म कर दिया था , लेकिन रिव्यू की संभावनाएं मौजूद हैं

केंद्रीय सूचना आयोग ने तमाम दबाबों के आगे झुकते हुए ऐसा नियम 2008 में  बना दिया था , जिसमें वह मन मर्जी का कोई भी निर्णय पास कर दे, फिर उस गलत निर्णय का वह रिव्यू का चांस ख़त्म कर दे,
और आर टी आई अप्लिकेंट कोर्ट के चक्कर लगाने को मजबूर हो जाये , और कमजोर इंसान सदा के लिये टूट जाये


सीधा प्रावधान होना चाहिए था की अगर सूचना एक्सएमपटेड नहीं है तो दी जाये , इसके लिये फालतू की हियरिंग और टाइम वेस्ट नहीं होना चाहिए ।
अगर इंफोर्मेशन केंद्रीय सूचना आयोग के निर्देश पर न दी जाये तब ही हियरिंग की जानी चाहिए

REVIEW SYSTEM ELIMINTED BY CENTRALMINFORMATION COMMISSION IN A TRICKY WAY, A CLEVER ACT.

BUT DON'T WORRY, EVEN AFTER THIS CIC REVIEWD ITS JUDGEMENT ON THS BASIS OF -
Review of a decision :  A review is permissible only if

-         There is a technical error in the decision

-         There was an omission to consider certain material facts relevant for the decision

-         Appellant was not given opportunity to be heard

-         PIO has not enclosed relevant supporting documents in his comments to CIC.
WE WILL GIVE YOU SOME ORDERS REGARDING THIS ISSUE IN OUR NEXT POSTS