The External Affairs Ministry has said in an RTI reply that it "has no records to indicate that any assurance was provided to USA for Anderson's visit to India".
The applicant had asked the Ministry whether any assurance was given to United States Government for not initiating any legal action during the visit of the then Union Carbide chief to India in December 1984. He has also sought all the documents along with file notings in this regard.
The Ministry has also said there is "no information" if there was any meeting convened by the then External Affairs Minister (the name was not given by the Ministry) regarding issue of any kind of assurance given to any government official from the United States.
It has also said that there is "no information" about any official from the US embassy contacting the then External Affairs Minister or Secretary regarding the visit of Anderson.
The reply was provided by the Ministry after the Central Information Commission slapped a show-cause notice to it and gave a deadline of November 30 to provide the answers.
"The Commission...directs the Public Information Officer, Ministry of External Affairs to provide the information sought by the complainant by November 30, 2010.
"The complainant may also be allowed inspection of relevant filed and be provided with the attested copies of documents, including file notings, if required," Information Commissioner Annapurna Dixit held in her order.
Anderson had reached Bhopal from the US nearly three days after the gas tragedy struck the city on the intervening night of December 2-3, 1984 killing over 15,000 people.
On his arrival, he was arrested by local police and later granted bail. He left the country on December 7 and has remained evasive since then.
He was allegedly allowed to use an aircraft of Madhya Pradesh government to come to Delhi from Bhopal from where he returned to the US.
The CBI has been consistently pursuing the matter of extradition of Warren Anderson since 1993.
However, the US did not agree for extradition of Anderson stating that the request of India does not meet the requirements of dual criminality under Article 2(1) and 9(3) of the extradition treaty between the two countries.