Central Information Commission
Shamji Ramji Parmar vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 6 May, 2021
केन्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
द्वितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/PASOF/A/2019/108628
CIC/MOEAF/A/2019/114816
Shri Shamji Ramji Parmar ... अपीलकताा /Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Regional Passport Officer, Mumbai ...प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent
PIO,Ministry of External Affairs
Through: Sh. P Roychoudhury- Advocate and Sh.
S C Agarwal - Consultant
Date of Hearing : 05.05.2021
Date of Decision : 06.05.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on dated
108628 20.08.2018 24.09.2018 28.10.2018 22.11.2018 14.02.2019
114816 28.06.2018 18.07.2018 16.10.2018 04.12.2018 28.022019
Information soughtand background of the case:
CIC/PASOF/A/2019/108628 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated20.08.2018seeking information on the following 8 points about renewal of his passport:-
1. Kindly provide me the information of the notings, instruction on the above Police Verification Report (PVR), No Objection Recommendations dated 03.02.2012 to renew my legitimate passport, duly received and acknowledged by you on 06.02.2012 - copy of which is once again enclosed herewith an Annexure for your base and ready reference and the effective necessary actions. Kindly provide me send me copies of all the documents of the above police verification report dated 03.02.2012.Page 1 of 5
2. Kindly provide me the information of your day to day action taken reports and the up to date status reports on the above police verification report dated 03.02.2012.
3. If no action is taken, provide me justified honest logical, cogent reasons thereof.
4. Kindly provide me the information and the copies of the entire full set of the above police verification report dated 03.02.2012.
5. Kindly make available all the documents of the above police verification report dated 03.02.2012 and all the other related documents in this matter for my inspection and to take out the xerox - photo copies of the same.
6. If no satisfactory, justifiable, reasonable, logical action not taken on the above police verification report, no objection and recommendation to review my legitimate passport by the responsible officer, kindly provide me the full names, designation of all the negligent, delinquent, erring officer and the mandatory disciplinary punitive actions taken against them.
7. Kindly provide & send me copy of your office's up to date citizen's charter mentioning the time period to renew my legitimate passport of receipt of the competent police authority's above police verification reports dated 03.02.2012 duly received by you on 06.02.2012.
8. Kindly mandatorily under the RTI Act, 2005 Provide me the full information of the 1st Appellate Authority's full name, designation, full office address, direct telephone contact numbers, mobile number and e-
mail address to enable me to file my 1st appeal under the RTI Act, 2005.
(queries are verbatim) CPIO, Dy.Passport Officer, Mumbai vide letter dated 24.09.2018 provided a detailed point wise reply to each of the 8 queries raised by the Appellant in his RTI application, enclosing copy of police verification report (PVR) dated 03.02.2012. In view of change of address of the Appellant, he had been called to the office of the Respondent vide letter dated 16.02.2012, for verification of current residence proof. When Appellant did not turn up for the same, the application for renewal was closed in the system on 26.07.2012 under intimation to the Appellant and he was requested to apply afresh complying with usual formalities.
Dissatisfied with the reply of the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.10.2018. FAA vide order dated 22.11.2018 upheld the decision of CPIO.
Feeling 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 through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties attended the audio conference and the Page 2 of 5 Appellant reiterated his grievance stating that his passport was not renewed despite his repeated reminders and queries.
Respondent represented by counsel responded that the initial application filed by the Appellant on 30.05.2011 required that tenure of residence of the Applicant be mentioned therein. Police verification report revealed that the Applicant was not residing at the address mentioned in the application form. In view of these discrepancies, the Appellant was called to the Respondent's office vide letter dated 16.02.2012, which the Appellant did not heed. Subsequently, the legacy system (NIC) was shut down from 30.06.2012 and hence the earlier application dated 31.05.2011 was closed down with the system on 26.07.2012 and Appellant was accordingly apprised, as mentioned by the PIO in his reply.
Decision In the light of the foregoing position, the Commission notes that the reply sent by the PIO on 24.09.2018 is self explanatory and addresses the query of the Appellant. The Appellant had also been advised to apply afresh, complying with usual formalities. Considering that the RTI query had been answered appropriately, within the precincts of the RTI Act, no further action is deemed necessary in this case.
CIC/MOEAF/A/2019/114816 The Appellant filed an RTI application datedNil seeking information on 13 points, inter alia:-
A. Kindly provide me information of your true, correct transparent, authenticated, certified, paragraphwise, prayerwise, seriatim, compliance, progress reports on my following request - appeal - reminders letters:
a) My 1st request appeal - complaint No. 1 dated 28.12.2013.
b) My 2nd appeal - complaint reminder dated 20.05.2015.
c) My 3rd appeal - complaint reminder dated 08.07.2015.
B. Kindly provide me your true, transparent, authenticated certified your action taken informations - clarification in regards to (Supreme court Order) page 4, Paragraph 3, Annexure E of my 1st request appeal- complaint dated 28.12.2013.
C. Kindly provide me information of your true, correct transparent, authenticated, certified information - clarifications as regards page 5, Paragraph 4, of my 1st request appeal-complaint dated 28.12.2013. D. Kindly provide me information of your true, correct transparent, authenticated, certified information - clarifications as regards page 3, Paragraph 2 of my 1st request appeal-complaint dated 28.12.2013. Etc. (queries are verbatim) Page 3 of 5 CPIO, US (Vig.), Ministry of External Affairs vide letter dated 16.07.2018 replied that the information sought cannot be provided as the same is in the form of queries which do not fall within the definition of 'information' under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. The PIO referred to decisions of the Delhi High Court in the cases of 'ShailSahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar &Ors. dated 05.02.2014'and 'ShailSahni vs. Smt. Valsa Sara Mathur &Ors.dated 19.01.2016'dissuading repeated RTI applications on the same matter.
Dissatisfied with the reply of the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.10.2018. FAA vide order dated 04.12.2018 upheld the decision of CPIO, citing decision dated 25.09.2018 of the Commission in the Appellant's earlier Second Appeals CIC/MOEAF/A/2017/124348 & CIC/MOEAF/A/2017/143563.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 29.04.2021 has been received from CPIO/MEA, relevant excerpt whereof are as follows:
i. The lengthy RTI application dated 12.10.2018, was addressed to Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal with a copy marked to the Hon'ble President of India. It had not been addressed to the Ministry of External Affairs(MEA), neither was it transferred to the MEA ii. The aforementioned lengthy RTI application is not in terms of the Rule 3 of the RTI Rules, 2012 as notified vide Gazette notification dated 31.07.2012. iii. Respondent has referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyay in support of the contention that answering such lengthy RTI application is counter productive and adversely affects the resources of the public authority.
iv. The Respondent has further mentioned earlier Second Appeals filed by the same Appellant about the same subject matter, viz. the IFS officer, Ms, Devyani Khobragade. The Respondent mentioned Second Appeal numbersCIC/MOEAF/A/2017/124348 & CIC/MOEAF/A/2017/143563 decided by order dated 25.04.208 and Second Appeal number CIC/PMOIN/A/2017/141449 decided by order dated 08.05.2018 of the Commission.
v. Furthermore, Respondent has relied upon decisions of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the cases of 'Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar &Ors. dated 05.02.2014' and 'Shail Sahni vs. Smt. Valsa Sara Mathur &Ors. dated 19.01.2016'whereby the Court has repeatedly discouraged abuse and misuse of the RTI Act by lengthy, irrelevant and vague RTI applications.
In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing through audio conference was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through audio conference and have reiterated their respective contentions. Decision:
Page 4 of 5Upon perusal of the records of the case, it is noted that the documents submitted by the Appellant with the Second Appeal are mismatched. The RTI application dated 06.09.2015 was addressed to the Hon'ble Prime Minister while the PIO's reply dated 16.07.2018 was in response to RTI application dated 28.06.2018, which is not part of the Second Appeal. Moreover, the subject matter as such stands adjudicated by two earlier decisions (dated 25.04.2018 and 08.05.2018) of the Commission, as noted above. Therefore, no fresh adjudication of the same issue is permissible by operation of the principle of res judicata. The Appellant is advised to refrain from filing more fresh RTI applications on the same issue which has already been adjudicated by the Commission.
With these observations, the aforementioned second appeals stand disposed off.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के. नसन्हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के. द्विटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 of 5