Information regarding the visa clearance including the reason for denying the visa to a British whose wife and children were granted the visa were sought CIC: Queries and seeking clarifications do not qualify as “information” under Section 2(f) of RTI Act
Decision Dated 02.02.2016
1. Shri Francis Samson Correa filed an application dated 05.01.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Foreigners Division seeking information on eight points regarding the visa clearance including the reason for denying the visa to Mr. Winston Oliver Farrer (British Passport No. 210280004) while his wife and children were granted the visa, details of concerned person who deals with the issue, authorized person who is required to be contacted, chances of getting the visa, reason for differential treatment between his family and him with regard to issuance of visa, etc.
2. The appellant filed second appeal on 29.04.2014 before the Commission on the ground that he is not satisfied with the information provided by the CPIO and FAA.
3. The appellant Shri Francis Samson and the respondent Smt. Anjana, Under Secretary (Visa), MHA were present in person during the hearing.
4. The appellant submitted that complete information has not been provided to him and that the respondent has only provided information on point no. 1 of the RTI application.
5. The respondent submitted that the information sought in point no. 1 of the RTI application pertaining to the issue of not granting the visa has been provided to the appellant vide letter dated 03.03.2014. With regard to the remaining information, the respondent submitted that they are in the form of queries and seeking clarifications and therefore, do not qualify as “information” under Section 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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; of the RTI Act, hence, cannot be answered. The respondent further submitted that the appellant has raised additional issues under the first appeal. Thus, information to the extent possible has been provided to the appellant.
6. The Commission observes that due information has been provided to the appellant by the respondent.
7. With the above observation, the appeal is disposed of.
8. Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Citation: Shri Francis Samson Correa v. Ministry of Home Affairs in Decision No. CIC/VS/A/2014/001251/SB