Can I & II appellant authority have power of review of their own order?

[arunonline]

As per section 10 (2) (e), there is a power with the Public Information Officer to review his own orders. Is there such power of review with the first and second Appellate authorities?

[kushal]

No. Unless the power to review is conferred by a statute, no authority shall have any power to review its own orders. Hence, neither the first or second Appellate officer (Central/state Commissions) have power to review their own orders.

[maneesh]

The power of review confered to CPIO enables CPIO to furnish additional information in future.

To put it in perspective,
CPIO denies some information, but at later date he comes to know that the information is required to be given, then with power of review vested in him, he can sou moto provide the information and revise his reply.

But if you look at the appelate level, no information is provided. The point of consideration before first stage and second stage appeal is that wheather the decision not ot provide or part provide information was correct or not.

Therefore, review at CPIO stage is more relevent than at any of the appelate stage. Infact, at the first and second appelate stage review of the decison of CPIO is done at seperate fora.

[colnrkurup]

"It is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either pecifically or by necessary implication"

[mpai]

Originally Posted by arunonline

As per section 10 (2) (e), there is a power with the Public Information Officer to review his own orders. Is there such power of review with the first and second Appellate authorities?

If the Fundamental Right of the appellant or that of the respondent has been affected, then they can can request for a review. This applies to the 2nd Appeal and the CIC/SIC will have to call for a full bench to review this decision.

Manoj

[karira]

Originally Posted by arunonline

As per section 10 (2) (e), there is a power with the Public Information Officer to review his own orders. Is there such power of review with the first and second Appellate authorities?

Arun,

I think you are misinterpreting the Section 10(2)(e).

2.	Where access is granted to a part of the record under sub-section (1), the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall give a notice to the applicant, informing—

a.	...... ........

...............

e.

his or her rights with respect to review of the decision regarding non-disclosure of part of the information, the amount of fee charged or the form of access provided, including the particulars of the senior officer specified under sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, time limit, process and any other form of access. The above does not mean that the PIO has the power to review his own decision. It only means that if partial information is given, the PIO must inform the applicant, his/her rights to seek review of the decision regarding non disclosure...........etc etc etc... ======= Maneesh, There is no question or scope under the RTI Act for Power to give additional information. If any PIO gives "additional" information, that means that the original information given was "incomplete" or "false" or "misleading". In that case, the applicant should have gone in for First Appeal under section 18 (1) (e). In this connection, I have a experience in a similar situation: An applicant made a RTI application to the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise in Hyderabad, asking for various types of information. The PIO replied with all the information correctly, but added at the bottom of the reply "In case the applicant needs further clarification, he may approach the Central Board of Excise and Customs located at........... New Delhi (or something to that effect...I don't remember the exact words). The applicant went for first appeal under Section 18(1)(e) stating that the information given was: - "incomplete" (if it was complete, why was he being asked to go somewhere else ?), - "misleading" (the PIO himself was not sure about the information he was giving and passing the buck to someone else and disowning responsibility for the information given) - "false" The officer for first appeal upheld the appeal on ALL the three counts.