Central Information Commission
Mr. Hardesh Goswami vs M/O Of External Affairs on 6 November, 2009
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2009/001412
Dated 6th November, 2009
Name of the Applicant : MR. HARDESH GOSWAMI
Name of the Public Authority : M/O OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTI application on 01.09.08 with the PIO, Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh requesting for information related to standard time frame fixed by the Passport Office for issuing a passport with reference to File ID No.CHDZ 36222007 and CHDZ 36197507 besides the status of the two applications for passport . He stated that in the first case he may be informed about the formalities required to be completed for issuance of passport and in the second case the reasons for the negative police verification report of Mr. Harish Kumar. The PIO replied on 29.08.09 stating that since the information pertains to third party the same is being denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. He also stated that disclosure of information would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Being aggrieved with the PIO's reply (not in the file), the Applicant filed a First Appeal on 24.10.08 stating that he is shocked by the working of office of RPO, Chandigarh as they had informed in the case of Mr. Harish Kumar that "according to their information a criminal case is pending against him, hence he can not be issued a passport". He added that a criminal case had never been filed against Mr. Harish Kumar. The Appellate Authority replied in November, 2008 stating that he does not find any lacuna in the information provided by the PIO and that he has rightly denied the information under Section 8(1)((j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Being aggrieved with this reply the Appellant filed his Second Appeal before CIC on 9.12.08
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner scheduled the hearing for 6 November, 2009.
3. Mr. Vitul Kumar, RPO & CPIO and Mr.P. Roy Chaudhury represented the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Respondent stated that the Appellant is not in any way related to the two applicants who had applied for the passport and about whom the Appellant was seeking information and that information was denied to the Appellant as it related to a third party. Also the authorization letter simply consisted of a plain piece of paper with signatures which could not be considered as legal document by the RPO The Appellant, however, averred that one of the two applicants (Mr. Harish Kumar) was his brother and the other his client, he (the Appellant) being an Advocate. He also stated that he had furnished a letter to the Respondent stating that he is authorized to get the information from the RPO but the passport officer refused to consider the letter. He further added that while in his brother's case, the passport has already been issued, in the case of the client it has been withheld since the Appellant has not provided his certificate in support of his claim of possessing a BA Degree and for suppressing other information while filing his application for the passport. The Respondent however, added that if the Appellant produces the required explanation, his passport would be issued before 15th November, 2009, as the police verification has already been completed. The Commission while noting that the required information has been provided by the RPO accordingly advises the Appellant to provide the information as sought by the PIO and obtain the passport.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian) Assistant Registrar Cc:
1. Mr. Hardesh Goswami S/o Shri Chander Kumar R/o 1, Teliwara Bhiwani, Haryana - 127021-05.
2. The PIO Ministry of External Affairs Regional Passport Office SCO 28-32, Sector - 34A Chandigarh.
3. The Appellate Authority Ministry of External Affairs O/o the JS (CPV) Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg New Delhi.
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC