Central Information Commission
Salil Lodha vs Ministry Of Home Affairs on 8 May, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2024/130586
Salil Lodha .... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, MHA, Foreigners Division(FCRA Wing) ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 07.05.2026
Date of Decision : 08.05.2026
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 18.01.2024 FA : 03.05.2024 SA : 18.09.2024
CPIO : 09.04.2024 FAO : - Hearing : 07.05.2026
Date of Decision: 08.05.2026
CORAM
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.01.2024 before the PIO, MHA, Foreigners Division(FCRA Wing), seeking the following information:
"i. Copy of last application for 'Renewal' (no. 0300114442021) filed by JAIN VISHVA BHARATI under Section 16 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (42 of 2010) for the acceptance of foreign contribution by a person/association having definite cultural, economic, educational, religious or social programme.
ii. Copies of all annexures/documents which were attached along with the aforesaid Application submitted by Jain Vishva Bharati. Copy of detailed grounds/reasons on the basis of which the competent authority refused the aforementioned Renewal application vide decision/communication dated 09.01.2024 stating, "The competent Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2024/130586 Page 1 of 3 authority has refused the renewal application under Section 16(1) read with Section 12(4)(e) and Section 12 (4)(f)(iii) of FCRA, 2010. iv. Copy of entire set of correspondence/written communication of Jain Vishva Bharati with the competent authority in relation to latest renewal of FCRA registration in question."
[reproduced verbatim]
2. The PIO, MHA, Foreigners Division (FCRA Wing) vide response dated 09.04.2024 conveyed as under:
"As information sought by you was a third party information, accordingly, a written submission was sought from third party vide letter dated 01/02/2024. Third party vide letter dated 06/02/2024 has requested not to disclose the information sought by the applicant.
Keeping in view the submission of the third party, CPIO is of the view that sought submission would cause invasion of privacy of the individual. Hence, disclosure is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. "
[reproduced verbatim]
3. Not satisfied with the PIO's reply, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 03.05.2024 stating that he is the Secretary/Chief Functionary of the Society - which is the third party and No Ojection/Consent had been sent by the Society vide letter dated 06.02.2024 for disclosure of information to the Appellant, while the Respondent had wrongly denied information on the pretext of non receipt of NOC from third party. The First Appeal filed by the Appellant was not adjudicated by the FAA.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant filed the instant Second Appeal. Facts emerging in course of Hearing:
5. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar T - Dy. Secy. attended the hearing.
6. The Appellant has filed a written submission dated 07.04.2026 stating as under:
"...after filing of the Second Appeal, response dated 04.11.2024 to the RTI Application dated 18.01.2024 ('RTI Application') was received by the Appellant from the Central Public Information Officer ('CPIO') whereby, information sought was received, except point (iii) being "Copy of detailed ground/reasons on the basis of which the competent authority refused the aforementioned Renewal Application vide decision/communication dated 09.01.2024 stating -Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2024/130586 Page 2 of 3
The Competent Authority has refused the renewal application under section 16(1) read with Section 12(4)(e) and Section 12(4)(iii) of FCRA, 2010", however, as a matter of fact, be it noted that the license of Jain Vishva Bharati already stands renewed as on date.
Thereafter, around January 2025, response was received from First Appellate Authority, disposing off RTI Application by relying on the information provided by CPIO on 04.11.2024.
Considering that the response to the First Appeal has been received, the Appellant herein, does not wish to pursue the proceedings before the Central Information Commission.
In view of the same, the Appellant wishes to formally withdraw the Second Appeal which is presently listed before the Hon'ble Chief Information Commissioner, Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal on 13.04.2026 at 11:45 AM."
[reproduced verbatim]
7. On being asked by the Commission to justify the wrongful denial of information by the PIO, MHA, Foreigners Division (FCRA Wing) vide its initial response dated 09.04.2024, the Respondent stated that the PIO had inadvertently denied disclosure of the information owing to certain misunderstanding. However, subsequently, on a review of the contents of No Objection/Consent received from the Society, the information sought by the Appellant was duly furnished to him vide letter dated 04.11.2024, a copy whereof has been duly placed on record.
Decision
8. In the light of the Appellant's communication dated 07.04.2026 seeking withdrawal of the case, no further adjudication is required in this case.
The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.
Sd/-
Raj Kumar Goyal (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मु सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26186535 Second Appeal No. CIC/MHOME/A/2024/130586 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)