Seeking re-adjudication of a matter that was already decided by the CIC

The appellant sought the date of the receipt of a particular Comprehensive Report and the action taken on it, specifically if any orders were passed based on the Comprehensive Report. The appellant also sought to the specific sections under Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 or under Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957, under which the copies of the Minutes of Meeting nominating the list of Office Bearers as "Protected workman" for the year, 2023-24, were sought form the Union. The CIC observed that the PIO has furnished adequate and appropriate replies within the framework of the RTI Act and upon the direction of the FAA, additional information was furnished. The CIC noted that an identical issue was disposed by the Bench in File No. CIC/UTPON/C/2023/145647 on 23.03.2024. The CIC held that there is no ground to re-adjudicate a matter that has already been duly decided and where all available information has already been furnished to the Appellant.

Comments

The CIC does not have the power to review its own order. It would be wastage of the time of the CIC to reach out with the same matter repeatedly as it may not yield any different result.

Citation: K Lakshminarayanan v. Labour Commissioner, File No: CIC/ARWNG/A/2024/119756/CSRTI; Date of Decision: 11.12.2025
 

Dr Anuradha Verma (dranuradhaverma@yahoo.co.in) is a RTI Consultant currently working with IIM Vishakhapatnam. She has co-authored the books PIO’s Guide to RTI and Right to Information – Law and Practice. Her weekly article is being published since 2008 on this site. She offers consultancy on RTI matters and third party audit to individuals / organisations. Her other articles can be read at the website of RTI Foundation at the link https://www.rtifoundationofindia.com