{"id":44373,"date":"2009-09-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-09-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009"},"modified":"2017-06-20T02:26:27","modified_gmt":"2017-06-19T20:56:27","slug":"sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009","title":{"rendered":"Sh. Rajeev Verma vs Ministry Of External Affairs , Goi on 29 September, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Central Information Commission<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Sh. Rajeev Verma vs Ministry Of External Affairs , Goi on 29 September, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>              Central Information Commission\n\n                                                              CIC\/AD\/C\/2009\/000613\n\n                                                           Dated: September 29, 2009\n\nName of the Appellant              :        Sh. Rajeev Verma\n\nName of the Public Authority       :       Ministry of External Affairs , GOI\n\n\nBackground<\/pre>\n<p>1.    The Applicant Sh. Rajeev Verma filed an RTI application dated 07.04.2008 seeking<br \/>\n      a copy of the Letter written by the Russian Customs Department to the Indian<br \/>\n      Embassy in Moscow based on which the Indian Embassy in Moscow had written a<br \/>\n      letter No. Mos\/Trade\/551\/35\/2003-INV dated 29.04.2004. The CPIO replied vide<br \/>\n      letter dated 23.05.2008 denying the information as sought by the Applicant,<br \/>\n      firstly since investigation in the case was still being conducted by the Directorate<br \/>\n      of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi and secondly because the DRI is a<br \/>\n      body\/institution exempt from the provisions of the RTI Act 2005. The Applicant<br \/>\n      admittedly received a letter dated 11.04.2008 from Mr. R N Kajla, CPIO, MEA,<br \/>\n      New Delhi stating that the information sought by the Applicant pertained to the<br \/>\n      Embassy of India at Moscow and hence the application was transferred to the<br \/>\n      appropriate authorities with a request to furnish the information as sought by the<br \/>\n      Applicant within the prescribed time limit. The Applicant then preferred a<br \/>\n      complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act      before the Commission      which was<br \/>\n      rejected by the Commission vide Order dated 17.12.08 on the grounds that the<br \/>\n      DRI is exempt from the purview of the RTI Act and that the Applicant should have<br \/>\n      filed his first appeal before the First Appellate Authority thus exhausting available<br \/>\n      channels for seeking information before appealing before the Commission. Being<br \/>\n      thus unable to obtain the relief sought, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition before<br \/>\n      the Hon&#8217;ble High Court of Delhi being CWP No. 7072\/2009 challenging the order<br \/>\n      dated 17.12.2008 passed by the CIC. The said Writ Petition was subsequently<br \/>\n      withdrawn by the Petitioner with liberty to approach the First Appellate Authority<br \/>\n      and the writ accordingly disposed off on 24.02.09.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.    The Applicant then approached the First Appellate Authority in MEA who rejected<br \/>\n      the appeal vide Order dated 13.4.09 mainly on the grounds that the letter dated<br \/>\n      29.4.09 from the First Secretary,(Trade) , Embassy of India, Moscow was directly<br \/>\n      sent by the Indian Embassy to DRI without going through MEA and that the MEA<br \/>\n      was not involved in any of the communications        between the First Secretary in<br \/>\n      Moscow and the DRI about the Applicant and that these are not matters<br \/>\n      pertaining to MEA. Hence it is the DRI and not the MEA which is the custodian of<br \/>\n     the said letter.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   Being aggrieved by denial of information once again, the Appellant filed another<br \/>\n     Writ Petition before the Hon&#8217;ble High Court of Delhi being CWP No. 8882 of 2009<br \/>\n     challenging the order of the First Appellate Authority. Even this Writ Petition was<br \/>\n     withdrawn by the Counsel for the Appellant on 12.05.2009 with liberty to file an<br \/>\n     appeal before the Central Information Commission. Accordingly the instant Appeal<br \/>\n     was filed before the CIC on 18.05.2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   In his Appeal before the CIC, apart from reiterating the entire sequence of events<br \/>\n     leading to the filing of the Appeal, the Appellant stated the following grounds:\n<\/p>\n<p>     i.     Contradictory stance of the Respondent Public Authority in as much as the<br \/>\n            orders of the CPIO and the First Appellate Authority while rejecting his RTI<br \/>\n            request indicate disparity;\n<\/p>\n<p>     ii.    The First Appellate Authority in its order dated 12.05.2009 while stating<br \/>\n            that DRI was the custodian of the information sought by the Appellant had<br \/>\n            completely absolved itself from the matter;\n<\/p>\n<p>     iii.   The CPIO on the other hand had denied the information on the ground that<br \/>\n            investigation in the matter was pending whereas it is the contention of the<br \/>\n            Appellant that investigation in the case was complete and huge demand of<br \/>\n            Rs. 20 crores had been fastened upon the Appellant leading to criminal<br \/>\n            complaints against the Appellant ;\n<\/p>\n<p>     iv.    The MEA officials at one point had submitted the alleged document in the<br \/>\n            hands of the Commissioner on 18.7.07 and now the same Respondents ie,<br \/>\n            MEA has taken the stand in its order dated 13.4.09 that they are not<br \/>\n            custodian of the letter.\n<\/p>\n<p>     iv.    The Appellant also alleged that response\/s of the CPIO had been evasive<br \/>\n            and contradictory, made with the ultimate objective of depriving the<br \/>\n            Appellant of the information which is vital for fighting the ongoing criminal<br \/>\n            cases against him. The Appellant in his appeal before the CIC          further<br \/>\n            contended that the impugned order of the Respondent Public Authority was<br \/>\n            directly in conflict with the principles of natural justice since the Appellant<br \/>\n            had been issued Show cause notice, ordered Preventive Detention under<br \/>\n            provisions of the COFEPOSA Act, denied Passport and the impugned order<br \/>\n            dated 12.05.2009 issued against him without granting him opportunity to<br \/>\n            be heard.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5.   The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner scheduled a<br \/>\n     hearing for 15.09.2009 and the parties were intimated accordingly vide CIC&#8217;s<br \/>\n     notice dated 02.09.2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   Mr. Debraj Pradhan, CPIO and Mr. Harish Kumar, Dy. Director, DRI represented<br \/>\n     the Public Authority\/s.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   Sh. Sandeep Chandna, Advocate represented the Appellant during the hearing.\n<\/p>\n<p>DECISION<\/p>\n<p>8.   During the hearing, the Appellant submitted his written submissions reiterating<br \/>\n     the contents of his Appeal before the CIC. Furthermore, the Appellant drew the<br \/>\n     attention   of   the   Commission   towards   his   earlier   RTI   Appeal   being   No.<br \/>\n     CIC\/OK\/A\/2007\/00555 dismissed by an order dated 26.07.2007. The observation<br \/>\n     of the Commission while dismissing the said Appeal clearly indicates that upon<br \/>\n     perusal of the documents     including   correspondence related to the matter, the<br \/>\n     Commission was satisfied that there was no element of interpolation or tampering<br \/>\n     of documents thereby dismissing the allegations of &#8220;violation of human rights&#8221;<br \/>\n     and\/or corruption involving the Public Authority. Among the documents annexed<br \/>\n     by the Appellant, the Commission also takes note of the letter dated 08.04.09<br \/>\n     [Annexure G] with the Appeal which is a letter addressed to the Appellant by the<br \/>\n     office of the Consulate General of India, New York. The reasons for denial of<br \/>\n     Passport to the Appellant and Show Cause issued against the Appellant for<br \/>\n     suppression of material facts is borne clearly in the said letter. Various punitive<br \/>\n     actions including the issuance of the Red Corner Notice on 24.01.2008 against the<br \/>\n     Appellant for alleged frauds committed and violation of laws of the land have been<br \/>\n     clearly etched out in the document.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.   On 22.9.09, the DRI sent its rebuttal to the written submission of the Appellant<br \/>\n     dated 15.9.09.      In response to the Appellant&#8217;s contention that there was no<br \/>\n     communication by the Russian Customs to Indian Embassy , Moscow on the issue<br \/>\n     of undue drawback availed by the Appellant, based on which the Indian Embassy,<br \/>\n     Moscow had purportedly written the said letter, the Respondent DRI placed before<br \/>\n     the Commission the said letter from Russian Customs to First Secretary(Trade)<br \/>\n     Indian Embassy, Moscow and also made reference to earlier hearings in the<br \/>\n     matter before the CIC where CIC held that DRI is an exempted agency under RTI<br \/>\n     Act, 2005. He also submitted before the Commission that the relief sought by the<br \/>\n     Appellant under the &#8216;Human Rights&#8217; violation pretext was also examined by the<br \/>\n     CIC on an earlier occasion and set aside, and accordingly the matter had attained<br \/>\n     its finality.    The Respondent Public Authority (DRI) also highlighted in his<br \/>\n     submission of 22.9.09, details of intelligence inputs received by DRI related to the<br \/>\n       fraudulent export of goods under drawback scheme from India to Russia by the<br \/>\n      Appellant, under repayment of State Credit Scheme and also of investigations<br \/>\n      involving enquiries from various entities associated with the exports. These<br \/>\n      investigations culminated in the issuance of a showcause notice to the Appellant<br \/>\n      on 24.12.04 under the provisions of the Customs Act 1962 demanding recovery of<br \/>\n      fraudulently availed drawbacks along with interest on purported exports made to<br \/>\n      Russia by the Appellant&#8217;s firms. With regard to the said letter being sought by the<br \/>\n      Appellant, the Respondent Public Authority (DRI) stated that it relates to certain<br \/>\n      enquiries conducted by DRI with Russian Customs after initiation of investigations<br \/>\n      and that the letter dated 29.4.04 from First Secretary(Trade) to DRI was based on<br \/>\n      that letter.   It was also informed by the Appellant that a preventive detention<br \/>\n      Order under Section 3(12) of COFEPOSA 1974 was issued against the Appellant<br \/>\n      on 7.10.04 by the Enforcement Directorate besides a Red Corner Notice by the<br \/>\n      Court of Ld ACMM.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.   While discussing the merits of the case based on the material available on record<br \/>\n      and the submissions, both oral and written, of both the parties, the Commission is<br \/>\n      of the view that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, no case for<br \/>\n      the alleged &#8220;violation of human rights&#8221; is made out by the Appellant. Even if for<br \/>\n      the sake of argument it is assumed that the principles of natural justice have been<br \/>\n      violated by non furnishing of the document to the Appellant based upon which the<br \/>\n      penal   actions   have   been   initiated   against   him,   the   Central   Information<br \/>\n      Commission is not the appropriate authority to adjudicate upon the propriety<br \/>\n      thereof. In so far as the information as sought by the Appellant is concerned, it is<br \/>\n      clear from the submissions of the Respondent Public Authority [viz MEA] that the<br \/>\n      document\/information exists in the custody of DRI. The Appellant&#8217;s contention<br \/>\n      that the MEA produced the letter before the Commissioner during the very first<br \/>\n      hearing of the case at CIC on 18.7.07 was refuted by the Respondent from DRI<br \/>\n      who pointed out that it was the DRI official present at the hearing who was in<br \/>\n      custody of the said letter and not the MEA.           It is a well known fact that the<br \/>\n      Department of Revenue Intelligence [DRI] enlisted at item no. 3 in the Second<br \/>\n      Schedule to the RTI Act 2005 is one of the Intelligence and Security Organisations<br \/>\n      established by the Central Government and is clearly exempt from the purview of<br \/>\n      the RTI ACT 2005 under provisions of the Section 24 of the Act. Having perused<br \/>\n      the records of the case as also the conduct of the Appellant as made out from his<br \/>\n      own submissions and from submissions of DRI, it is the considered opinion of the<br \/>\n      Commission, that the proviso clause of the Section 24 also does not apply to the<br \/>\n      instant case in as much as no case of either corruption on the part of the Public<br \/>\n      Authority or violation of human rights is made out. Also, it is important to<br \/>\n         recollect at this point of time the fact that an appeal on the same issue was<br \/>\n        disposed off with finality by the Commission on 26.7.07.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.     The Commission is therefore, for reasons given hereinabove, unable to direct<br \/>\n        furnishing of the requisite document as sought by the Appellant. Hence, the<br \/>\n        Appellant is at liberty to seek legal remedy at an appropriate legal forum. The<br \/>\n        appeal is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Decision in the matter was reserved and pronounced in open Court on September 29,<br \/>\n2009.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                                       (Annapurna Dixit)<br \/>\n                                                               Information Commissioner<br \/>\nAuthenticated true copy:\n<\/p>\n<p>(G. Subramanian)<br \/>\nAssistant Registrar<\/p>\n<p>Cc:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.      Shri Rajeev Verma<br \/>\n        C\/o Mr. Pradeep Jain<br \/>\n        # 34, Gujrat Vihar<br \/>\n        Vikas Marg<br \/>\n        New Delhi<\/p>\n<p>2.      The CPIO<br \/>\n        M\/o External Affairs<br \/>\n        O\/o JS [RTI Division]<br \/>\n        Akbar Bhawan,<br \/>\n        Chanakyapuri<br \/>\n        New Delhi<\/p>\n<p>3.      Officer incharge, NIC<\/p>\n<p>4       Press E Group, CIC\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Central Information Commission Sh. Rajeev Verma vs Ministry Of External Affairs , Goi on 29 September, 2009 Central Information Commission CIC\/AD\/C\/2009\/000613 Dated: September 29, 2009 Name of the Appellant : Sh. Rajeev Verma Name of the Public Authority : Ministry of External Affairs , GOI Background 1. The Applicant Sh. Rajeev Verma filed an RTI [&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-44373","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>Sh. Rajeev Verma vs Ministry Of External Affairs , Goi on 29 September, 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\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sh. Rajeev Verma vs Ministry Of External Affairs , Goi on 29 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-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=\"2009-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-19T20:56:27+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\\\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sh. Rajeev Verma vs Ministry Of External Affairs , Goi on 29 September, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-19T20:56:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1791,\"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\\\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009\",\"name\":\"Sh. Rajeev Verma vs Ministry Of External Affairs , Goi on 29 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-09-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-19T20:56:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sh. Rajeev Verma vs Ministry Of External Affairs , Goi on 29 September, 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":"Sh. Rajeev Verma vs Ministry Of External Affairs , Goi on 29 September, 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\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sh. Rajeev Verma vs Ministry Of External Affairs , Goi on 29 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-19T20:56:27+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\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sh. Rajeev Verma vs Ministry Of External Affairs , Goi on 29 September, 2009","datePublished":"2009-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-19T20:56:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009"},"wordCount":1791,"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\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009","name":"Sh. Rajeev Verma vs Ministry Of External Affairs , Goi on 29 September, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-09-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-19T20:56:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sh-rajeev-verma-vs-ministry-of-external-affairs-goi-on-29-september-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sh. Rajeev Verma vs Ministry Of External Affairs , Goi on 29 September, 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\/44373","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=44373"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44373\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44373"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44373"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44373"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}