Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Dhruv Malik vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 30 November, 2022

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

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOEAF/A/2021/636491

Shri Dhruv Malik                                             ... अपीलकता /Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, US(RTI), Ministry of External Affairs             ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Shri Ashok Kumar and Shri Gyan
Singh

Date of Hearing                      :    30.11.2022
Date of Decision                     :    30.11.2022
Chief Information Commissioner       :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on              :   21.04.2021
PIO replied on                        :   -
First Appeal filed on                 :   -
First Appellate Order on              :   -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on       :   16.08.2021

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.04.2021 seeking information on following points:-

I had filed a case with Ministry Of External Affairs, Indian Embassy in Doha,Qatar I gave the embassy substantial evidences that the Foreign Employer Qatar Airways which hired me from Delhi abused me and disabled me knowing well in advance the seriousness of my health condition Qatar Airways owner is King of Qatar, and it was for my safety and future that I decided not to file case in their labour court, Indian embassy had asked me to visit their lawyer, and the lawyer himself told me the severe consequences it can have on my future Immigration clearance if Qatar Airways files false case against me or deport me from Qatar.

Since I had had planned to settle their, I chose to wait for my Police Clearance from Qatar.

I got this PCC last year and my Australian PR last year as well.

I decided to warn all Indian Citizens working at Qatar airways airway that this companys Drs hide medical health conditions from the Cabin Crew and they disable them on purpose.

I even attached a confidential letter where the Companys CEO and VP were writing to each other to make me work till I get injured. Indian embassy instead of warning the citizens decided to put the blame on me, and said that I should have filed a labour case in Qatari court.

As per MEA process, if its found that Foreign Recruiter has abused Indian citizens, it gets blacklisted and Indian citizens forewarned about the company Please provide the following information u/s 2(f), 2(i),2 (j) and 6(1) of the RTI Act 2005

1) The process/procedure followed by MEA for Blacklisting a Foreign Recruiter

2) Please inform the list of evidences required

3) Please inform the time limit for bringing any complaint to MEA about the abuse.

4) Please inform the process if the company which did abuse belongs to a foreign countrys govt.

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal App dated nil which was not adjudicated by the FAA. Aggrieved over non receipt of the information information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from the Respondent vide letter dated 14.11.2022 providing a brief background of the case. Relevant excerpt whereof is as follows:

Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. Respondents are present for the hearing, while the Appellant has not n attended the hearing despite service of hearing notice in advance. Respondents placed reliance on the detailed written submission dated 14.11.2022, copy whereof has been marked to the Appellant. The wri written tten submissions indicate the action taken by the Respondent with respect to the complaint of the Appellant. The Appellant has also sent written submissions which are taken on record.

Decision:

In the absence of the Appellant, the case is decided on the basis of records available. It is noted that the Respondent had taken appropriate action with respect to the Appellant's complaint and furnished information as permissible under the RTI Act to the Appellant. Therefore, mandate laid down under the RTI Act has as been duly adhered to by the Respondent. It is worthwhile to recall that the scope of the RTI Act extends only to disclosure of information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and not in redressal of grievances or resolving inter se disputes. Hence, nce, the Commission is of the opinion that there remains no cause of action for further intervention in this case under the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed off 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 3 of 3