Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Senthilkumaran P vs Embassy Of India, Washington, Usa on 26 April, 2023

                                 के ीय सूचना आयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                             बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                         नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

िशकायत सं या / Complaint No. CIC/EIWUS/C/2022/629174

Shri Senthilkumaran P                                   िशकायतकता /Complainant
                                 VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Embassy of India, Washington DC                    ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
MEA
Through: Shri Subhash Agrawal

Date of Hearing                       :    24.04.2023
Date of Decision                      :    26.04.2023
Chief Information Commissioner        :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

RTI application filed on               :   27.01.2022
PIO replied on                         :   16.02.2022
First Appeal filed on                  :   -
First Appellate Order on               :   -
2ndAppeal/complaint dated              :   05.04.2022
 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 27.01.2022 seeking information on the following point:-

I have submit to office of the ambassador In washington about the yoga culture involving the corporate social responsbility through email, 06/11/2021, This Date.

So, what is the action by ambassador, therefore I want to data in RTI act.

The CPIO/HOC, Embassy of India, Washington DC vide letter dated 16.02.2022 replied as under:-

Dissatisfied with response received from the PIO, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from the CPIO, Embassy of India, Washington DC vide letter dated 18.04.2023, reiterating the above facts and adding as follows:

Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are duly represented during the hearing held through video conference and reiterated their respective contentions in terms of the facts narrated above.

Decision Perusal of records of the case at hand reveals that information held by the public authority had been duly disseminated to the Complainant. Thus no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case.

In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that the case does not merit action under Section 18 of the RTI Act, since there is no Page 2 of 3 deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent. Hence the complaint is disposed off as such.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3