{"id":231433,"date":"2009-04-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-04-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009"},"modified":"2015-11-09T15:18:59","modified_gmt":"2015-11-09T09:48:59","slug":"mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009","title":{"rendered":"Mr. Bincy Thomas vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 15 April, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Mr. Bincy Thomas vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 15 April, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>               Central Information Commission\n                                                             CIC\/AD\/A\/2009\/000256\n\n                                                                  Dated April 15, 2009\n\n\nName of the Appellant                  :   Mr. Bincy Thomas\n\nName of the Public Authority           :   Ministry of External Affairs\n\n\nBackground<\/pre>\n<p>1.    The Appellant filed an RTI application on 05.06.2008 addressed to the Ministry<br \/>\n      of External Affairs seeking information pertaining to the RTI applications received<br \/>\n      and dealt with by the M\/o External Affairs between the period of October 10th<br \/>\n      2005 and March 31st 2008. He requested for the information in a tabular form<br \/>\n      relating to:\n<\/p>\n<p>      1) the RTI applications received, &#8216;Not Responded to&#8217;, &#8216;Rejected&#8217;, &#8216;Full Information<br \/>\n      provided&#8217;, &#8216;Part Information Provided&#8217; or &#8216;Forwarded to another Authority&#8217; etc.;\n<\/p>\n<p>      2)   Copies of relevant pages of application register or any other record of the<br \/>\n      applications received, dates thereof alongwith names and addresses of the<br \/>\n      Applicants;\n<\/p>\n<p>      3) Copies of all RTI applications received by the MEA between 12th October 2005<br \/>\n      to 31st March 2008;\n<\/p>\n<p>      4) Detailed break-up of the time taken in responding to or rejecting the RTI<br \/>\n      applications between 12th October 2005 and 31st March 2008;\n<\/p>\n<p>      5) A tabular questionnaire about the various Sections of the RTI Act 2005 applied<br \/>\n      while rejecting the RTI queries during the same period has also been sought by<br \/>\n      the Appellant through the RTI application.\n<\/p>\n<p>      Information was also sought in the form of copies of i) all First Appeals received<br \/>\n      and ii) orders given by First Appellate Authority; iii) number of First Appeals<br \/>\n      accepted\/rejected alongwith a tabular break-up of the time taken in disposal of<br \/>\n      the First Appeals between 12th October 2005 to 1st April 2008 and iv) the number<br \/>\n      of First Appeals wherein appellant was given opportunity of being heard before<br \/>\n      deciding the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.    The CPIO, MEA responded vide letter No. RTI\/551\/176\/2008 dated<br \/>\n      02.07.2008 denying the information to the Appellant under provisions of Section<br \/>\n      7(9) of the RTI Act 2005 stating that the information sought is voluminous and<br \/>\n      would disproportionately divert the resources of the Public Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3.   Being aggrieved at the denial of the information, the Appellant then filed a First<br \/>\n     Appeal before the Appellate Authority on 30.07.2008,.                 In the detailed<br \/>\n     appeal, the Appellant provided a brief reiteration of his RTI application and also<br \/>\n     the gist of the PIO&#8217;s reply. While countering the PIO&#8217;s argument on Section 7(9) of<br \/>\n     the RTI Act 2005, the Appellant, in his appeal, contended that the provisions of<br \/>\n     the Section do not allow the PIO to refuse the information altogether, but make<br \/>\n     provision for providing the information in whatever form it is available.<br \/>\n     Furthermore, the Appellant contended that most of the information sought by him<br \/>\n     should have been, any way, available with the Public Authority as a mandate as<br \/>\n     per provisions of Section 25(3) of the RTI Act 2005, and if the PIO maintained<br \/>\n     that the information was not available with him, the same would suggest<br \/>\n     contravention of the RTI Act 2005 by the Public Authority for improper and<br \/>\n     inadequate maintenance of records. The First Appellate Authority, Dean,<br \/>\n     Foreign   Service   Institute   &amp;   Secretary,    MEA    vide   his    letter   dated<br \/>\n     06.08.2008 allowed the appeal directing that information provided by the<br \/>\n     Ministry to the CIC should be made available to the Appellant immediately and in<br \/>\n     case the Appellant seeks any further information on any specific point, inspection<br \/>\n     of the relevant files to be allowed and photocopies of documents as sought by<br \/>\n     Appellant to be made available to him upon payment of prescribed fees.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   The CPIO being thus directed by the Appellate Authority responded to the<br \/>\n     Appellant vide letter dated 08.09.2008 providing partial information to the<br \/>\n     Appellant. While the information sought by the Appellant on points 1,4,5 and 8 of<br \/>\n     the RTI application were provided, the information pertaining to points 2,3,6,7<br \/>\n     and 9 was not furnished nor was the Appellant offered inspection of the relevant<br \/>\n     files. The CPIO also failed to even cite any exception under the RTI Act 2005 for<br \/>\n     not providing the information despite specific orders of the Appellate Authority to<br \/>\n     this effect. Thus the Appellant was compelled to once again approach the First<br \/>\n     Appellate Authority vide his letter dated 01.10.2008 seeking redressal of his<br \/>\n     grievance of having been provided incomplete information. The Appellant set out<br \/>\n     in tabular form the details of the information &#8216;Not provided&#8217; to him by the CPIO.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   In response to her letter dated 01.10.2008, the First Appellate Authority, being a<br \/>\n     different officer in the place of the earlier FAA, responded vide his letter dated<br \/>\n     14.11.2008 whereby she directed the CPIO to provide information with respect to<br \/>\n     the points 2 and 3 by allowing the Appellant to examine and obtain photocopies of<br \/>\n     the register wherein all RTI applications received are noted\/entered. However,<br \/>\n       with respect to points 3, 6 and 7, the FAA denied permission to disclose<br \/>\n      information under Section 8(j) and with respect to point 9 of the RTI application<br \/>\n      the Appellate Authority stated that &#8220;the RTI Act does not provide any opportunity<br \/>\n      to the applicant for hearing in respect of appeals to the Appellate Authority&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.    Being thus aggrieved by the denial of information, the Appellant filed a second<br \/>\n      appeal before the CIC on 22.01.2009 against the First Appellate Authority&#8217;s order<br \/>\n      dated 14.11.2008. In his Appeal before the CIC, the Appellant submitted details of<br \/>\n      the entire sequence of events leading to the filing of the appeal and challenged<br \/>\n      the act of the subsequent First Appellate Authority overruling the initial order of<br \/>\n      her predecessor. Furthermore, the Appellant challenged the contradiction in the<br \/>\n      impugned order with respect to the &#8220;allowing as well as disallowing&#8221; disclosure of<br \/>\n      information related to point 3 of the RTI application. The ambiguity and<br \/>\n      vagueness in the impugned order dated 14.11.2008 with respect to the point 9 of<br \/>\n      the RTI application was also specifically contended by the Appellant in his Appeal<br \/>\n      before the CIC. The Appellant also stressed that the partial disclosure of<br \/>\n      information and the inordinate delay in response by the CPIO despite specific<br \/>\n      orders of providing the same immediately attracted penal provisions and<br \/>\n      accordingly the CPIO is liable to be penalized as per provisions of Section 20(1) of<br \/>\n      the RTI Act 2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.    The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the<br \/>\n      hearing for 15.04.2009 and a communication dated 28.03.2009 was accordingly<br \/>\n      sent to the parties intimating the date of hearing of the appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.    Mr. Shekhar Singh was present on behalf of the Appellant during the hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.    None was present from the Public Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision<\/p>\n<p>10.   Perusal of the appeal before the CIC brings out the most obvious question of law<br \/>\n      as to under what powers and on what grounds the subsequent First Appellate<br \/>\n      Authority [Ms. P Sen Vyas] reviewed and revised the Order dated 06.08.2008<br \/>\n      passed by the erstwhile Appellate Authority [Sh. Ajai Choudhury]. It is interesting<br \/>\n      to note, as has also been the contention of the Appellant, that the entire process<br \/>\n      of review by the subsequent FAA [Ms. P Sen Vyas] is suo motu and without even<br \/>\n      as much as any Review Petition being on record. The RTI Act 2005 does not<br \/>\n      provide for setting aside or overruling of an Order of the First Appellate Authority<br \/>\n      by the predecessor since appeal against the Order of the First Appellate Authority<br \/>\n       lies only before the CIC and is decided only by the Information Commissioner. In<br \/>\n      the instant case, however, the powers exercised by the subsequent First Appellate<br \/>\n      Authority is evidently ultra vires, beyond the jurisdiction of powers conferred upon<br \/>\n      the FAA, and the CIC does take a stringent view of the same.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.   Even on the merits of the case, the impugned order clearly lacks application of<br \/>\n      mind as is evident from the contradictory directions with respect to the disclosure<br \/>\n      of information vis a vis the point 3 of the RTI application. While in the para 2 of<br \/>\n      the impugned order dated 14.11.2008, the Appellant is permitted &#8220;&#8230;to examine<br \/>\n      the register&#8230;. and obtain photocopies of documents as desired upon payment of<br \/>\n      prescribed fees with respect to points 2 and 3&#8230;&#8221; of the RTI application, in the<br \/>\n      following para 3 of the impugned order, &#8220;..request for information in point 3 &#8230;.. is<br \/>\n      not permitted under Section 8 (j) of the RTI Act 2005&#8230;&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>      The denial of the information being vague and not supported by adequate reason<br \/>\n      indicates the superficiality as even the exemption sought under the RTI Act has<br \/>\n      not been properly mentioned by an officer of the rank of an Appellate Authority.<br \/>\n      The application of Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005 simpliciter without<br \/>\n      justifying the same not only contradicts the provisions of Section 19 (5) of the RTI<br \/>\n      Act 2005 but it is also completely unwarranted, considering the fact that the RTI<br \/>\n      Act 2005 provides for the Severability clause under Section 10 (1) wherein that<br \/>\n      part of the information which may be exempt from disclosure may be separated<br \/>\n      from the information that may be provided. The denial of information simply citing<br \/>\n      an incorrect provision of law without adequate reasoning or justification only<br \/>\n      indicates the intention to avoid disclosure of information thereby defeating the<br \/>\n      purpose of the Act viz. promotion of transparency in the working of every Public<br \/>\n      Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>             All the information sought by the Appellant herein relating to the RTI<br \/>\n      applications before the MEA in any case cannot be classified as personal<br \/>\n      information for the simple reason that the same forms part of public documents<br \/>\n      under a special enactment, the RTI Act 2005 which in itself promotes<br \/>\n      transparency. The Orders uploaded on the website of the CIC contain synopsis of<br \/>\n      all the applications and First Appellate orders as well and contain no personal<br \/>\n      information vis a vis the applicants and hence the information sought by the<br \/>\n      Appellant already exists in the public domain. Hence the exemption invoking the<br \/>\n      provisions of Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005 could easily have been provided<br \/>\n      either as it is or atleast after application of the provisions of the Section 10 (1) of<br \/>\n      the RTI Act 2005, neither of which has been done in the instant case.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12.    The exercise which ought to have been undertaken by the Public Authority in<br \/>\n       providing the information to the Appellant has clearly been undertaken to deny<br \/>\n       the same. In effect, the denial of information on unsubstantiated grounds has<br \/>\n       resulted in violation of provisions of the RTI Act 2005. The Commission after going<br \/>\n       through the merits of the case in detail, while upholding the order dated<br \/>\n       06.08.2008, passed by the erstwhile FAA, hereby directs that all the information<br \/>\n       as sought by the Appellant specifically with respect to the points 2,3,6,7 and 9<br \/>\n       may be provided by 10th May, 2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>       The denial of information without adequate reason and delayed and incomplete<br \/>\n       response by the CPIO despite specific orders of the erstwhile FAA is directly in<br \/>\n       contravention of the spirit and provisions of the Act and hence the Commission<br \/>\n       takes a very strong view of such violation. Accordingly the Commission directs<br \/>\n       the CPIO to Show Cause why penal provisions under Section 20 of the<br \/>\n       RTI Act 2005 may not be invoked against him for not furnishing<br \/>\n       information within the stipulated time and for knowingly providing<br \/>\n       incomplete information. The reply to the Show Cause to reach the Commission<br \/>\n       within 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.    The appeal is disposed off accordingly in the above terms.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                       (Annapurna Dixit)<br \/>\n                                                               Information Commissioner<\/p>\n<p>Authenticated true copy:\n<\/p>\n<p>[G. Subramaniam]<br \/>\nAssistant Registrar<br \/>\n Cc:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.    Mr. Bincy Thomas, C-17A, DDA Flats,<br \/>\n      Munirka, New Delhi &#8211; 110 067<\/p>\n<p>2.    The DS &amp; CPIO, MEA<br \/>\n      Room No. 801, Akbar Bhawan,<br \/>\n      Chanakyapuri, New Delhi &#8211; 110 021<\/p>\n<p>3.    The Special Secretary, MEA &amp; Appellate Authority -RTI<br \/>\n      Room No. 183-A, South Block,<br \/>\n      New Delhi &#8211; 110 011<\/p>\n<p>4.    Officer in charge, NIC<\/p>\n<p>5.    Press E Group, CIC\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Mr. Bincy Thomas vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 15 April, 2009 Central Information Commission CIC\/AD\/A\/2009\/000256 Dated April 15, 2009 Name of the Appellant : Mr. Bincy Thomas Name of the Public Authority : Ministry of External Affairs Background 1. The Appellant filed an RTI application on 05.06.2008 addressed to the Ministry [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-231433","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-central-information-commission","category-judgements"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Mr. Bincy Thomas vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 15 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr. Bincy Thomas vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 15 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-09T09:48:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr. Bincy Thomas vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 15 April, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-09T09:48:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1825,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Central Information Commission\",\"Judgements\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009\",\"name\":\"Mr. Bincy Thomas vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 15 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-09T09:48:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr. Bincy Thomas vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 15 April, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr. Bincy Thomas vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 15 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr. Bincy Thomas vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 15 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-09T09:48:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr. Bincy Thomas vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 15 April, 2009","datePublished":"2009-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-09T09:48:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009"},"wordCount":1825,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Central Information Commission","Judgements"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009","name":"Mr. Bincy Thomas vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 15 April, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-09T09:48:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-bincy-thomas-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-on-15-april-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr. Bincy Thomas vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 15 April, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231433","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=231433"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/231433\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=231433"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=231433"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=231433"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}