Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Jackson Chungath vs Cpv Division on 10 May, 2019

                                 के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                            बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                           नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067



नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/CPVEX/A/2017/605026


 Jackson Chungath                                              ... अपीलकताग/Appellant


                                       VERSUS
                                        बनाम


 CPIO, Ministry of External                                ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondents
 Affairs, Consular, Passport &
 Visa Division, New Delhi.


Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 13.04.2017             FA      : 23.05.2017            SA : 10.09.2017
 CPIO : 18.05.2017,
                              FAO : 03.07.2017                Hearing : 07.05.2019
 18.07.2017, 20.07.2017


                                     ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi, seeking information on 14 points pertaining to Passport Rules 1980, including, inter-alia, (i) details regarding how and where to apply for refund of passport application fees, and (ii) the guidelines to be followed by a Page 1 of 4 Passport Issuing Authority before closing a file (running passport) as per Passport Rules 1980.

2. The appellant filed a second appeal before the Commission on the grounds that no satisfactory reply/information has been provided to him by the CPIO on point nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 of his RTI application. He further contended that both, the CPIO and the FAA unnecessarily forwarded the RTI application, twice, to CPIO, Dy. Passport Officer (PMU) to furnish the information on 5, 6 and 7 of the RTI application even when the subject matter was related to PV-1 Section. Moreover, he had sought information regarding procedure to be followed before closing an active passport, however, the CPIO provided misleading information in this regard. The appellant requested the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide the information sought for.

Hearing:

3. The appellant Shri Jackson Chungath attended the hearing through video- conferencing. The respondent Shri Subodh Kumar, CPIO and Dy. Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, PSP Division, New Delhi and Shri P. Roychaudhuri, Advocate for the respondent, were present in person.

4. The appellant submitted that no satisfactory reply/information has been provided to him by the CPIO on point nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 of his RTI application. He stated that the respondent did not fully address his query regarding refund of passport fees under Rule 10 of Passport Rules 1980. Moreover, he had sought information regarding procedure/guidelines to be followed before closing an active passport application file on point nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the RTI application.

Instead, the CPIO provided information regarding power of Passport Authority to refuse to issue a passport to an applicant. He further contended that false information has been provided to him on point nos. 8 and 9 of his RTI application since Section 12(1)(b) of Passports Act 1967 does not empower Passport Authority to impose a pecuniary penalty as also reiterated by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its judgment dated 12.04.2013 in W.P. (C) 5818/2011. Whereas, the CPIO (PV-1) has stated in his reply that Passport Authority is empowered to impose a pecuniary penalty under Section 12 of Passports Act 1967.

5. The respondent submitted that point-wise information as per the available records has been provided to the appellant vide letters dated 18.05.2017 and 20.07.2017. The respondent further stated that Rule 10 of Passport Rules 1980 provide for refund of passport fees subject to certain conditionalities. The provision which is self-explanatory is also uploaded on the website. With respect to point nos. 8 and 9 of the RTI application, the respondent submitted that under the RTI Act, the CPIO only provides information as is available and existing in the records of the public authority.

Decision:

6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that the appellant, vide point nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the RTI application, had sought information regarding closing of passport application file. However, the respondent provided information regarding the powers of Passport Authority to refuse issuance of a passport. Thus, correct information has not been furnished by the respondent to the appellant in respect of point nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the RTI application. In view of this, the Commission directs the respondent to provide Page 3 of 4 complete and correct information regarding the procedure/guidelines for closing of an active passport application file as sought vide point nos. 5, 6 and 7 of the RTI application to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the Commission.

7. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

8. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भागगव) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) दिनांक / Date 08.05.2019 Authenticated true copy (अनभप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) R. Sitarama Murthy (आर. सीतारम मूती) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:

1. The First Appellate Authority (FAA) Ministry of External Affairs, Consular, Passport & Visa Division (CPV), Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg, New Delhi- 110001.

2. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Ministry of External Affairs, Consular, Passport & Visa Division (CPV), Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg, New Delhi- 110001.

3. Shri Jackson Chungath Page 4 of 4