Judgment Interlocutory Application No.9182 of 2013 This application is filed with a prayer to condone the delay of 3 months and 25 days in filing the review application. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents and we are satisfied with the reasons mentioned in the application. The delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Civil Review No. 355 of 2013 This application is filed with a prayer to review the order dated 09.07.2013 passed in LPA No.355 of 2013. The facts, in brief, are as under. The 2nd respondent herein submitted an application before the P.I.O. of the concerned department under the Right to Information Act (for short, “the Act”), with a prayer to furnish some information relating to selection of constables. Complaining that the information was not furnished, he filed an appeal and thereafter 2nd appeal before the State Information Commission-1st petitioner herein. The 2nd Appeal being Case No.42430 of 2010-11 was taken up for hearing on 13.12.2011 but there was no representation on behalf of the 2nd respondent. However, the 1st petitioner passed a reasoned order and closed the appeal. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed an application before the 1st petitioner complaining that the required information was not furnished. Acting on that, the 1st petitioner passed an order on 08.08.2012 directing the 1st respondent to furnish some more information. Challenging the order dated 08.08.2012, the 1st respondent filed CWJC No.17311 of 2012. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition through order dated 18.09.2012. Aggrieved by that, the 1st respondent filed LPA No.355 of 2013. One of the grounds urged by the 1st respondent was that the 1st petitioner does not have the power to review its own order and accordingly, the order dated 08.08.2012 is without jurisdiction. That ground weighed with the Division Bench, of which one of us (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vikash Jain), is a member; and the LPA was allowed. An observation was made to the effect that the 2nd respondent can avail the remedy of an appeal under Section 19 of the Act. The petitioners herein seek review of the order under appeal, only to the extent it has permitted the 2nd respondent to file an appeal under Section 19 of the Act. An observation was made to the effect that the 2nd respondent can avail the remedy of an appeal under Section 19 of the Act. The petitioners herein seek review of the order under appeal, only to the extent it has permitted the 2nd respondent to file an appeal under Section 19 of the Act. According to them, the Act does not provide for any further appeal against the order passed by the State or Central Information Commission. Heard Sri Lalit Kishore, learned Principal Additional Advocate General for the petitioners, Sri A.K. Singh, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.1 and Sri Raj Kumar Rajesh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. The principal contention that weighed with the Bench which passed the order in the LPA is that the authority cannot exercise the power of review unless the power of review is conferred under the concerned enactment. There is no quarrel with this proposition nor any contention is raised in this behalf. The only concern of the petitioners here is about the observation in page 4 of the order, which reads as under: “The only option available to the respondent no.3 (respondent no.2 herein), in view of the detailed nature of the order dated 13.12.2011 was to file an Appeal under Section 19 of the Act.” It has already been mentioned that what was filed before the 1st petitioner was the 2nd appeal under Section 19 of the Act. That was disposed of on 13.12.2011. Another order passed by the 1st petitioner on 8.8.2012 was treated as constituting review of the same; and accordingly it was set aside. Obviously, with a view to keep other avenues for the 2nd respondent open, and to enable him to pursue his remedy, the said observation was made, but inadvertently, reference was made to Section 19. Whether one goes by the remedies that have already been availed by the 2nd respondent, or the Scheme under the Act, there does not exist any further appeal, i) against the order passed in 2nd appeal and ii) against the order passed by the State Information Commission. It is fairly well settled that an application for review can be entertained if an inadvertent mistake in relation to the reference to the provision of law has been crept into the order. Such a situation obtains in this case. It is fairly well settled that an application for review can be entertained if an inadvertent mistake in relation to the reference to the provision of law has been crept into the order. Such a situation obtains in this case. We, therefore, allow the review application and replace the sentence, “The only option available to the respondent no.3 (respondent no.2 herein), in view of the detailed nature of the order dated 13.12.2011 was to file an Appeal under Section 19 of the Act.” with one, “It shall be open to the 3rd respondent, i.e. the 2nd respondent herein, to avail the remedy in accordance with law”. Interlocutory application, if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.