Central Information Commission
Swati Bhanot vs Embassy Of India, Doha, Qatar on 29 March, 2022
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली,
ली New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/EOIDQ/A/2020/119784
Ms. Swati Bhanot ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Embassy of India - Doha, ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Ministry of External Affairs
Through: Shri R Srinivasan - US(Gulf)
Date of Hearing : 28.03.2022
Date of Decision : 29.03.2022
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.03.2020
PIO replied on : 20.04.2020
First Appeal filed on : 11.05.2020
First Appellate Order on : -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 21.07.2020
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated seeking information on following points:-
Presently I have filed a Petition for Divorce against my husband, Mr. Mudit Perti on the grounds of cruelty and desertion, at the Family Court of Mumbai at Bandra bearing No. A 1152 of 2019. The Honorable Family Court was also pleased to issue summons to his permanent address in India. However the same has returned unserved, through email, through the Embassy of Qatar in Mumbai, however he has failed to appear till date. Hence I am filing this application to you. Mr. Mudit Perti has been residing in Qatar and was last employed at Qatar Fuels having his office at Woqud Tower, Doha. Since it appears that Mr. Mudit Perti has changed his residential address I request you to please provide his current residential address, office address and his updated email address to serve the Petition to him.
The PIO/Second Secretary/HOC vide letter dated 20.04.2020 replied as under:-Page 1 of 2
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 11.05.2020 which was not adjudicated.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are present for the hearing held through video conference and the Appellant submitted that the summons issued by the Family Court, Bandra in the divorce case filed by her, has now been served and her husband's lawyer appeared in the Court on the last date of hearing. But she is still not able to obtain her husband's current address and hence sought the help of the Respondent public authority, through this appeal.
Decision:
Upon examination of the facts of the case, the Commission finds no lacunae in the response sent by the Respondent. reliance is placed on the judgment dated 19.02.2014 in Union of India vs. R Jayachandran [W.P.(C) 3406/2012], whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that passport related information is personal in nature and cannot be disclosed to a third party information seeker, under the RTI Act. Considering the facts of the case at hand, the need for the address of the Appellant's husband for service of Court summon does not exist anymore since her husband's lawyer has appeared in Court. In fact the Appellant can obtain the same information during the course of the Court proceedings. It is made clear that provisions of the RTI Act do not permit disclosure of information related to a third party. Hence, the Appellant is advised to seek the information, outside the ambit of the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off on the above terms.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई.
वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2