Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Ashraf Khan vs Consulate General Of India, Jeddah, ... on 7 October, 2022

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

िशकायत सं या / Complaint No.    CIC/CGJSA/C/2021/608065
                                CIC/EIRSA/C/2021/625524

Shri Ashraf Khan                                          ...िशकायतकता /Complainant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

1. PIO, Consulate General of India,                       ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Jeddah through US(RTI), Ministry of External
Affairs.

2. PIO, Embassy of India, Riyadh through US(RTI)
Ministry of External Affairs
Through: Shri S C Agrawal- RTI Consultant with
Shri Saqib - Advocate

Date of Hearing                        :    06.10.2022
Date of Decision                       :    07.10.2022
Chief Information Commissioner         :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from complaint:

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

  Case      RTI Filed     CPIO reply       First appeal       FAO       Complaint
   No.         on                                                         dated
 608065    16.09.2020     15.10.2020       17.10.2020      12.11.2020   05.03.2021
 625524    09.04.2021     27.05.2021       21.05.2021      09.06.2021   22.06.2021

Information sought

and background of the case:

(1) CIC/CGJSA/C/2021/608065 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 16.09.2020 seeking information on following 03 points:

1. Copy of order letter/appointment letter of Ms. Hamna Mariyam as an observer for embassy schools.

2. Please provide the name of embassy schools for which Ms. Hamna Mariyam is appointed as Observer.

3. What is the duties and responsibilities of Ms. Hamna Mariyam as school observer.

The CPIO/Head of Chancery vide letter dated 15.10.2020 replied as under:-

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a first appeal dated 17.10.2020. The FAA vide online order dated 12.11.2020 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

A written submission dated 05.09.2022 has been received from the Consul(Eco.)/CPIO/Chancery Project, Consulate General of India, Jeddah referring to a decision dated 14.09.2022 passed in case no. CIC/CGJSA/C/2021/608065 and making the following averments:

(2) CIC/EIRSA/C/2021/625524 The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 09.04.2021 seeking information on the following 06 points:-

The email communication of Higher Board executive secretary revealed the leading role of Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Danish for the procurement of TALEEM PROJECT in 10 International Indian Schools (IIS) which is situated in the different cities of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Danish who is living in Jeddah (his iqamah no.2112305384) provided 9 or 12 proposals from Indian suppliers to the members of SELECT COMMITTEE for the review.

Here it is pertinent to note that Mr. Danish is not parent of any of the IIS and he was also approved by the embassy Observer, Col. Maneesh Nagpal as a Chairman of School, IIS situated in the Taif city of Saudi Arabia. The appointment of Mr. Danish not only violates the rules of Saudi Ministry of Education regulation but also violates the NOC issued by embassy to CBSE, Government of India.

Therefore, I request public information officer of embassy to provide the following information under the norms of RTI Act 2005 of Government of India.

1. Please provide the copy of tender invited for TALEEM PROJECT for IIS.

2. Please provide the copies of Indian newspaper in which tender of TALLEM PROJECT was advertised.

3. Please provide the copy of minutes of meeting of Higher Board about TALEEM PROJECT with duly signed and approved from the Saudi Ministry of Education.

4. Please provide the copies of quotation received from different Indian vendors regarding TALEEM PROJECT.

5. Name the staff or member authorized to receive the quotations from Indian vendor.

6. Please provide the copy of NOC given by the Saudi employer of Mr. Danish to become a chairman of IIS Taifschool in March 2020. (NOC is required as per Ministry of education regulation of foreign schools to become a member/chairman of school).

Having not received information from the CPIO within prescribed time limit, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 21.05.2021. However, the PIO vide online reply dated 27.05.2021 intimated as under:-

The request pertains to decision of the IISs which do not constitute a Public Authority under RTI Act, 2005.

The FAA/First Secretary (HOC&CW) vide order dated 09.06.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondent alone attended the hearing through video conference, while the Complainant was absent and has not communicated the cause of his absence to the Commission. Respondents reiterated their contentions about the issue at hand having been already decided by this Commission vide the decisions in the cases of Shri Motahar Hussain [CIC/EIRSA/C/2021/601104 CIC/EIRSA/C/2021/602026 CIC/EIRSA/C/2021/601706] dated 07.07.2022 and a batch of 15 cases of Shri Shamshir Khan dated 10.02.2022 cases. The Respondent further emphasised their contention about this being a proxy litigation whereby similar information is repetitively sought by fictitious persons, whose identity is not disclosed and the addresses are also incorrect. It is averred by the Respondent that this is resulting in unnecessary harassment of the public authority and is an abuse of the process of law per se and particularly of the RTI Act.

The Respondent has submitted written submission dated 05.10.2022, wherein the following aspects were also pointed out:

Decision:

Upon examining the facts of the cases, it appears that the information which was available with the Respondent has been duly provided to the Complainant. The aforementioned two complaints deal with the similar subject matter which has been adjudicated by different decisions of this Commission as cited hereinabove. Hence the issue has already attained finality.

In addition it is noted that that the complaints filed under section 18 of RTI Act, 2005 only require adjudication of the fact whether the information informa has been denied with any malafide intention or without any reasonable cause by the Respondent. Since records of both the cases do not indicate any such deliberate denial or concealment of information, there appears no malafide nor cause of action whichh would necessitate action under provisions of Section 18 of the Act of 2005. Moreover, the Complainant has chosen not to participate in the hearing to buttress his cases, despite service of hearing notice in advance.

In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the considered opinion that no further direction is necessary in these cases and the complaints are dismissed accordingly.

Y. K.. Sinha (वाई.

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 5 of 5