Central Information Commission
Sanjiv Aggarwal vs Embassy Of India, Pnom Penh,Cambodia on 8 August, 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/EOIPM/A/2024/127669
Shri Sanjiv Aggarwal ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Embassy of India, Phnom Penh, Cambodia
Through
Ministry of external affairs
Date of Hearing : 06.08.2025
Date of Decision : 06.08.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.06.2024
PIO replied on : 18.06.2024
First Appeal filed on : 25.06.2024
First Appellate Order on : - -
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 28.08.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.06.2024 seeking information on following points:-
i. "The matter related to damage to my unaccompanied baggage was reported to the Mission on 29.08.2023, 12.09.2023, 20.09.2023, 29.09.2023. What action Mission has taken subsequent to my mails? If any mail was sent to Mr. Theara, the agent of M/s TWD movers. If yes, please share a copy of the mail sent. If not sent, please share the reasons for not doing so. ii. I received a telephone call from Mr, Vijay Prasad, SS (HOC) on 25.09.2023 in front of Mr. Theara, whereby I was advised to approach through M/s Ashoka International for settlement. Please state whether subsequent to this telephonic conversation, Mr. Theara was advised to settle my claim. If yes, please share the copy of communication sent to him. If not, what was the reason for not taking any action?
iii. I sent a mail to the Mission on 10.10.2023 and on 18.10.20923 stating that neither Mr. Theara nor any representative from TWD movers have contacted the undersigned related to completing any more formalities in connection with settlement of my insurance claim. Please state whether matter was taken up with the packer again. If yes, please share copy of communication. If not, what was the reason for not taking up?
iv. If during 2023 and 2024 as on now, any more contract for packing of unaccompanied baggage of the Mission officials have been awarded to Mr. Page 1 theara. If yes, please share the details of rates submitted by him and by other bidders.
v. Please inform the name of the insurance company that was used by Mr. Theara for the unaccompanied baggage of these orders. vi. Please inform that despite my complaint of unprofessional jobs and dealing, whether any move was made to blacklist the company. If yes, please share copies of documents. If not what was the reason for not doing so. vii. If Mission has commenced the process of drawing a panel of packers. If yes, please share copies of all relevant documents. If not what is the reason of not doing so.
viii. And other related information."
The CPIO vide letter dated 18.06.2024 replied as under:-
"Reply :- the final reply of your RTI query can be provided only after receiving following additional information -
1. Receipt of premium paid by individual
2. documentary evidence of insured value of damaged items in particular."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 25.06.2024 .
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Further written submission dated 24.07.2025 has been received from the respondents wherein it is stated, ''Yet another RTl application (online) number MEAPP/R/E/24/00003 dated 12.06.2024 after carlier one dated 22.02.2024 was filed by Shri Sanjiv Aggarwal seeking voluminous information on the same subject-matter about his claim for damages from a private insurer/packer of Cambodia in respect of alleged damage of his baggage sent from Cambodia to India. RTI application was online responded vide response dated 18.06.2024 as per information available on record, demanding some documents for enabling the embassy to take further action on his claim with the said insurance-company/packer. The petitioner instead of providing the sought documents, preferred filing a First Appeal dated 25.06.2024 which was decided vice an online order dated 01.10.2024 again requiring the documents sought by the CPIO through his RTI response.'' Etc.....
Written submission dated 28.07.2025 has also been received from the appellants wherein it is stated, ''Embassy of India (both CPIO and FAA) have handled my RTI application in a Mery casual manner with blatant disregard to basic tenets of RTI act. El has not replied to even one queries as stated in my RTI applications both by CPIO andFAA.
ii. If that is not sufficient, even the response filed with the Hon'ble CIC to my second appeal dated 28.08.2024 is full of wrong facts.'' Etc. Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Page 2 Respondent: Subhash Chandra Agrawal, RTI Consultant participates in the hearing.
The Appellant submits that the respondents have not responded to the RTI queries. The respondent reiterates that the information sought is of the nature of a grievance. Further submits that the appellant was required to provide certain documents, same has not been provided. Moreover, providing such a voluminous information by compiling in the manner sought would have disproportionately diversified resources of public- authority and as such cannot be provided. Furthermore there is a portal *Madad" available on the website of MEA where the petitioner if so desired, my file his Grievance for any further resolution.
Decision:
In the light of the submissions made and the material on record, it is observed that appropriate reply has been provided to the Appellant by the CPIO. Further under the RTI Act the CPIO can only provide information which is available in the record. Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which states:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, ad vices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
In view of the aforementioned factual and legal position wherein it is noted that the Respondent has sent appropriate response to the Appellant, in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, no further adjudication is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.
The matter stands disposed of.
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 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)