Re: [HumJanenge] Power of Information Commission to reconsider its decision

The SIC can review his orders on the ground of errors apparent on the
face of records. This power is inherent on him. There are Supreme
Court judgments on the subjects. .

On 13/12/2010, Amitabh Thakur <amitabhth@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Friends,
>
>
>
> As we all know Section 20(1) of the RTI Act says that where the Information
> Commission, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the
> opinion
> that the PIO has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an
> application for information or has not furnished information within the
> specified
> time or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given
> incorrect, incomplete or misleading information etc., it shall impose a
> penalty
> of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received with a
> maximum penalty of Rs 25,000. It has a proviso that says that the PIO shall
> be
> given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed
> on
> him.
>
>
>
> In a particular case in which I was a complainant before the UP State
> Information Commission (SIC), the SIC had said in its order dated
> 22/06/2010-
>
> On the last date, the PIO Mr X was asked to provide the information or make
> it
> clear if the info cannot be given. Today the PIO did not appear nor did he
> inform of his reason for absence. Hence a fine under section 20 is being
> imposed with effect from the last date, 31/05/2010.
>
>
>
> The fine never got imposed and meanwhile the PIO presented dome
> representation
> seeking reprieve from the penalty. I also resented facts before the SIC
> saying
> that section 20 of the RTI Act does not seem to have a provision for
> reconsideration by the Information Commission. But on 19/11/2010, the SIC
> waived off its fine saying-
>
>
>
> "PIO says that at that time, B's case was pending in the Central
> Administrative
> Tribunal. Hence there was some delay in providing information. Moreover the
> PIO
> was also on Earned Leave between 26/05/2010 and 13/06/2010. The PIO assures
> on
> not repeating this in future.
>
> The Commission is of the view that if a fine has been imposed on a PIO
> without
> his/her fault and if these facts come in the notice of the Commission, then
> the
> Principle of Natural Justice says that an innocent person shall not be
> unnecessarily punished.
>
> In this case the information has been provided and the PIO has not
> intentionally made any mistake. Hence the fine imposed previously is waived
> off."
>
>
>
> There are a few factual mistakes in the order including the facts like-
>
> 1. Very huge delays were made in providing the information. The letter was
> sent
> to PIO on 29/05/2009 and then to the Appellate Authority on 05/10/2009. The
> information was finally given on 02/08/2010 after the fine was imposed
>
> 2. On the date on which fine was imposed, the PIO was not on leave but had
> already come back
>
>
>
> Then there is also a question of law. When the SIC made an order on
> 22/06/2010,
> it must have been made taking into considerations all the facts and
> circumstances. Can the SIC/CIC reconsider their own decisions? In what ways
> and
> circumstances? What does law say on this?
>
>
>
> I place all these facts before you to kindly guide me on this vital issue,
> based on your knowledge of law, so that I might proceed accordingly.
> http://nspindia.com/amitabh%20essays.htm
>
>
>
> Amitabh Thakur
>
> Currently at IIM Lucknow
>
> # 94155-34526
>
> www.nationalrtiforum.org
>
>
>