Jaykant Lakhamshi Malde vs Passport Office on 30 January, 2025

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Jaykant Lakhamshi Malde vs Passport Office on 30 January, 2025

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                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/PASOF/A/2023/135038.

Shri. Jaykant Lakhamshi Malde.                                   ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                   VERSUS/बनाम

PIO,                                                        ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Passport Office.


Date of Hearing                          :   28.01.2025
Date of Decision                         :   28.01.2025
Chief Information Commissioner           :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :          17.05.2023
PIO replied on                    :          09.06.2023
First Appeal filed on             :          27.06.2023
First Appellate Order on          :          13.07.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :          22.08.2023

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.05.2023 seeking information on following points:-

"Copy of my complaint dated: 28/4/2023 regarding Complaint against Mr. Hiren Lakhamshi Malde for giving false and incorrect information and by suppressing the facts get illegally renewed the Passport No. V9821218 with the name of Mr. Hiren L. Malde. (Copy Enclosed) 1. On my complaint dated: 28/4/2023 to till date any Inquiry done please provide complete Investigation and action taken Report towards my complaint. 2. Any additional information or documents please provide the same.."

The CPIO vide letter dated 09.06.2023 replied as under:-

"2. आपको सूचित ककया जाता है कक आपके द्वारा ईमेल से दी गई जानकारी संबन्धित अनभ ु ाग ने एम. आर. ए. मागग पलु लस स्टे शन, मंब ु ई और पलु लस उपायक् ु त, ववशेष शाखा-।।, सीआईडी, मंब ु ई को भेज दी गई है।"

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.06.2023. The FAA, Regional Passport Officer vide order dated 13.07.2023 stated as under:-

"I am satisfied with the reply provided by CPIO. As informed to you through the above-mentioned letter, the matter was referred to concerned police station Page 1 and Special Branch-II Wing of Mumbai Police. The police authorities have submitted their replies and the matter has been processed in accordance with the information received."

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present along with Ms. Setu J. Malde- participated in the hearing.

Respondent: Mr. P. Roychaudhari, Advocate- participated in the hearing.

The Appellant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that he had sought information related to his Complaint against Mr. Hiren Lakhamshi Malde. He averred that the FAA in order dated 13.07.2023 stated that the matter will be processed. However, updated status of his complaint/action taken on his complaint has not been furnished by the PIO till date.

The Respondent stated that the relevant information as per their records has been duly provided to the Appellant. He further averred that the matter was forwarded to police authorities and as per report the matter was under

investigation but chargesheet has not been filed. He stated that Mr. Hiren L. Malde had surrendered his passport on 14.03.024 and informed that matter is under investigation but chargesheet has not been filed. He apprised the Commission that in view of the Ministry's instruction dated 10.10.2029 the passport of Mr. Hiren L. Malde was re-dispatched.

Decision:

Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, directs the concerned PIO to furnish updated status of the complaint of Appellant as available in their records, with regards to the instant RTI Application, to the appellant, free of cost via speed post, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly compliance report to this effect be duly sent to the Commission by the PIO. In doing so PIO must make sure that information which is exempted from disclosure under RTI Act, 2005 must not be disclosed to the Appellant and same must be redacted under section 10 of the RTI Act, 2005 prior to the said disclosure. No further action lies.

Appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Page 2 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission