Central Information Commission
Mr.Sanjeevmittal vs Passport Office on 21 February, 2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/900154
Date of Hearing : February 21, 2011
Date of Decision : February 21, 2011
The Appellant was present during the hearing.
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Sanjeev Mittal,
G 301, Park View - II,
Sohna Road,
Gurgaon
Represented by : Shri Rakesh Kataria, Advocate
Respondent(s)
M/o External Affairs,
Passport Office,
Regional Passport Office,
HUDCO Trikoot3,
Bhikaji Cama Place,
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi
Represented by: Shri Anurag Bhushan, RP, MEA, New Delhi
Shri Suresh Yadav, Asst. RPO, New Delhi
Shri P. Roy Choudhuri, Advocate, C.P. V Div, MEA
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
_______________________________________________________
Decision Notice
As given in the decision
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/900154
ORDER
Background
1. The RTI Application dated 20.07.2010 was filed by the Applicant with the PIO, Regional Passport Office, New Delhi seeking information against 10 points related to the passport application he had filed with the passport office dated 29.03.2010. On not receiving any reply, the Applicant filed his First Appeal on 11.09.2010. The First Appellate Authority replied on 21.10.2010 directing the PIO to provide the information to the Appellant. Being aggrieved with this reply, the Appellant filed his Second Appeal before the Commission which was registered on 02.11.2010 requesting for the information.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that the RTI application was received on 9.9.10 and that a reply was sent to the Appellant by the PIO on 09.09.2010. The Appellant on his part questioned as to how the RTI Application which was sent by speed post on 20.07.2010 and and was received by the Respondent on 22.07.2010 as per speed post data base, can be seen by the PIO so late ie. on 9.9.10 .
3. While it seems that there was inordinate delay on the part of the PIO in providing the information, however, it is important to enquire into why the RTI Application has been received by the PIO so late ie. 09.09.2010. The Undersigned therefore, with the power under section 18 (2) of the RTI Act, 2005 directs the PIO to enquire into the reasons for the RTI application not being placed before the CPIO immediately and to fix the responsibility on the person found guilty of not having taken prompt action on the RTI Application from 22.07.2010 till 09.09.2010. The enquiry report along with the information on action taken on the offender may be shared with both the Commission and the Appellant.
4. The Appellant further complained about the delay in furnishing the information even after the Police Verification was sent to the Passport Office. According to him as per the Computer database of the Gurgaon Police, the passport verification had been completed and sent to the passport office on 21.4.10 . However the passport itself was issued in the month of October, almost of 6 months after receiving the PVR. The Appellant reported to the Commission that because of the delay in issuance of passport he was unable to travel abroad because of which he had faced immense financial losses.
5. Normally the delay in issuing a passport is attributed to the delay in receipt of the police verification report. In this case, however, it seems that the police had discharged their duties on time but the passport office had done nothing after receiving the PVR, for almost 6 months. This unacceptable state of affairs reflects an urgent need for some sort of overhauling of the whole system so that the Applicants for passports are not harassed. It is recommended that the concerned Jt. Secretary in the CPV Division take appropriate action to ensure that this kind of delay is not repeated. The Appellant at this stage also complained that he had sent several emails to the Public Grievances cell and that no one bothered to reply to his emails. The Jt. Secretary may also wish to issue necessary instructions in this regard.
6. A copy of the First Appellate Authority's reply providing complete information, point wise, which, however, was returned to the Passport Office along with the envelope because of non availability of the Appellant at the given address, was brought to the notice of the Commissioner. This reply was handed over to the Appellant during the hearing. It was agreed that the Appellant would, after perusing the information provided to him during the hearing, and within 5 days from the date of hearing, seek the missing information(if any) from the PIO which should be provided within the next 10 days. Alternately if he so desire, the Appellant may within these 5 days may opt for an inspection of the complete file dealing with his passport application, and be provided with attested copies of documents required by him.
7. The Commission also directs the PIO to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs.250/ per day (Maximum Rs.25000) should not be levied on him for not responding to the RTI application within the stipulated time period as prescribed in the RTI Act. He is directed to submit his written response to the Commission by 25.03.2011.
8. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Sanjeev Mittal, G 301, Park View - II, Sohna Road, Gurgaon
2. The Public Information Officer, M/o External Affairs, Passport Office, Regional Passport Office, HUDCO Trikoot3, Bhikaji Cama Place, R.K.Puram, New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority M/o External Affairs, O/o the Jt. Secretary (CPV), Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg, New Delhi
4. Officer Incharge, NIC.