Central Information Commission
Anjeev Kumar vs Embassy Of India, Doha, Qatar on 28 April, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/EOIDQ/A/2023/114475
Shri Anjeev Kumar ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Embassy of India, Doha, Qatar
Date of Hearing : 21.04.2025
Date of Decision : 21.04.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.11.2022
PIO replied on : 12.12.2022
First Appeal filed on : 17.12.2022
First Appellate Order on : 12.01.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 28.03.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 16.11.2022 seeking information on following points:-
1."What action had been taken against Mohammad Rais, Passport No. M6922503.
2.On what date Mohammad Rais left our country.
3. Whether Mohammad Rais informed about the pending summons/warrant against him.
4. Whether this Embassy having the knowledge of pending cases against Mohammad Rais.
5.On what date this Embassy got the knowledge of pending warrant against Mohammad Rais.
6.How many mails had been received from mail id [email protected] as yet."
The CPIO, Embassy of India, Doha, Qatar vide letter dated 12.12.2022 replied as under:-
(1) to (5) "This information is not available with Embassy of India, Doha.
(6) 27 email have been received from anjeev [email protected]. (7) This information is not available with Embassy of India, Doha."
Page 1 Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 17.12.2022. The FAA vide order dated 12.01.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 07.04.2025 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Mr. Subhash Agrawal, RTI Consultant -participated in the hearing.
The Appellant stated that the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application has not been furnished to him.
Mr. Subhash Agrawal reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the point-wise reply as available in their records has been duly provided to the Appellant.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Upon perusal of records and submissions made during hearing, it is noted that the RTI Applicant's queries had been appropriately answered by concerned PIO. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)