Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Akash Mahadev Jadhav vs Intelligence Bureau on 12 July, 2022

                                         के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                              Central Information Commission
                                   बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका

                              Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                               नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067



ि तीय अपील सं या   / Second Appeal No.        CIC/MOEAF/A/2021/602780
                                              CIC/INBRU/A/2021/602778
                                              CIC/EIRSA/A/2021/602769
                                              CIC/EIRSA/A/2021/602774
                                              CIC/EIRSA/A/2021/602776

Shri Akash Mahadev Jadhav                                              ...   अपीलकता /Appellant

                                         VERSUS/बनाम

PIO                                                               ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
   1.   Ministry of External Affairs
   2.   Ministry of Home Affairs
   3.   Intelligence Bureau
   4.   Embassy of India, Riyadh

Date of Hearing                                :    12.07.2022
Date of Decision                               :    12.07.2022
Chief Information Commissioner                 :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed together
for hearing and disposal.

 Case No.       RTI Filed      CPIO reply          First appeal        FAO          2nd Appeal
                   on                                                              received on
  602780       23.10.2020     26.10.2020           27.10.2020     24.11.2020       31.01.2021
  602778       22.10.2020     17.11.2020           23.11.2020          -           31.01.2021
  602769       17.09.2020     06.10.2020           07.10.2020     05.11.2020       31.01.2021
  602774       28.10.2020     16.11.2020           16.11.2020     15.12.2020       31.01.2021
  602776       09.10.2020     20.10.2020           27.10.2020     25.11.2020       31.01.2021

Information sought

and background of the case:

(1) CIC/MOEAF/A/2021/602780 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 23.10.2020 seeking information on the following:-
Page 1 of 5
The CPIO/Under Secretary (MEA-N), Ministry of External Affairs, vide online reply dated 26.10.2020 replied that no such information is available in the records of the Ministry of External Affairs Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.10.2020. The FAA/Director (ADP & RTI), MEA, vide order dated 24.11.2020 stated as under:-
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission has been received from the CPIO and US (RTI), MEA vide letter dated 04.07.2022 wherein it was stated that the FAA vide order dated 24.11.2020 directed the Nodal PIO to transfer points 1 to 5 of the RTI application to the M/o Home Affairs which was complied with vide letter dated 26.11.2020.
(2) CIC/INBRU/A/2021/602778 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 22.10.2020 seeking information on the following:-
The CPIO/Assistant Director, Intelligence Bureau, vide letter dated 17.11.2020 replied as under:-
Page 2 of 5
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.11.2020 which was not adjudicated b by y the First Appellate Authority as per available record.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
(3) CIC/EIRSA/A/2021/602769 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 17.09.2020 seeking information on the following:-
The CPIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh, vide online reply dated 06.10.2020 .10.2020 replied that the required information is not available in the records of the Embassy.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.10.2020. The FAA/Counsellor Counsellor (CW), Embassy of India, Riyadh, vide order dated 05.11.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

(4) CIC/EIRSA/A/2021/602774 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 28.10.2020 seeking information on the following:-

Page 3 of 5
The CPIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh, vide online reply dated 16.11.2020 replied that the required information is not available in the records of the Embassy.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.11.2020. The FAA/Counsellor (CW), Embassy of India, Riyadh, vide order dated 15.12.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

(5) CIC/EIRSA/A/2021/602776 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 09.10.2020 seeking information on the following:-

The CPIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh, vide online reply dated 20.10.2020 replied that the required information is not available in the records of the Embassy.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.10.2020. The FAA/Counsellor (CW), Embassy of India, Riyadh, vide order dated 25.11.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation.
The Respondent represented by Shri Bhupendra Singh Nikhurpa, US (RTI) and Shri Nirav Kumar B Sutariya, US (Gulf), MEA; Shri U K Sinha, Jt Director, Intelligence Page 4 of 5 Bureau and Shri Harminder Singh, DCIO, Intelligence Bureau participated in the hearing through video conference and reiterated the replies of their respective departments available on the Commission's record.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondents, the Commission is of the view that appropriate responses as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 have been provided by the MEA and Embassy of India, Riyadh, as only such information that is part of the available record of the public authority can be provided. As regards, the reply of Intelligence Bureau it is clear that as per the provisions of the Act that it is an organization exempted from the purview of the Act as per Section 24 (1) r/w the Second Schedule of the Act and no allegation of corruption or violations of human rights was justified by the Appellant. The Appellant was not present during the hearing to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to buttress his case. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant Second Appeals which stand disposed off accordingly.
वाई. के. िस हा) Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
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 5 of 5