Central Information Commission
Mr.Anoop Agrawal vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 9 March, 2011
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000303
Date of Hearing : March 9, 2011
Date of Decision : March 9, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Anoop Agarwal
H.No.36,
Sukh Sagar Valley Pollipather
Jabalpur 482 008
Madhya Pradesh
The Applicant arrived late for the hearing after the Respondent had left the Commission .
Respondents
Regional Passport Office
Gangotri Complex
T.T.Nagar
Bhopal 462 003
Represented by : Shri P.Roy Chaudhuri, Advocate on behalf of CPIO
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/2011/000303
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.9.3.10 with the PIO, RPO, Bhopal seeking information against 4 points with regard to the delay in issue of new passport for his daughter Varsha Agarwal. Shri J.K.Srivastava, Ag. Passport Officer replied on 29.4.10 as follows:
'In this connection, you are hereby intimated that your above application seeking information of your daughter Varsha Agarwal (age 7 years) is seems to be scanned one, it does not have your signature in original. Secondly, the envelope in which you sent the above application, which was posted through speed post of Andheri Post Office have remarks as:
IF UNDELIVERED RTI NATION C803, Ambika Tower PUMP HOUSE, JIJAMATA ROAD ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI 400 093 You are requested to kindly give your clearance on both points. Thereafter, the information regarding nonissuance of your daughter's passport is that a letter from MATRACHHAYA on its letterhead and the details about Fixed Deposits of Fifteen thousand or above in name of your daughter is not received in this office. This information was communicated to you earlier also when you visited this office last time.' The Applicant vide his letter dt.27.7.10 to the CPIO provided the following clarifications:
i) It was sent to your office on my behalf by an institute named 'RTI Nation' based in Mumbai.
ii) It was signed by me, scanned by me and emailed to "RTI Nation" so that they could send it to your office on my behalf.
In response to a second RTI application dt.11.6.10, wherein the PIO vide his letter dt.8.7.10 stated that since the envelope had remarks that if undelivered the same should be returned to RTI Nation, Mumbai the Applicant provided the following clarification:
i) First letter sent by your office through speed post dated 29.4.10 (at Jabalpur address) was duly received and signed by me.
ii) My second RTI application was sent from a speed post centre in Jabalpur
iii) Second letter sent by your office through speed post dated 8.7.10 (at Jabalpur address) was duly received and signed by me.
iv) I am enclosing an attested copy of my address proof along with this letter.
The Applicant filed an appeal dt.10.9.10 with the Appellate Authority stating that no information has been received despite providing clarifications as sought by the PIO. On not receiving any reply, he filed a second appeal dt.23.11.10 before CIC. Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that neither the clarification nor the first appeal was received by the passport office Hence information could not be furnished. He also stated that that all that is required for issuance of passport is for the Appellant to complete certain formalities at the passport office and also to furnish certain documents. The Appellant who came late after the Respondents had left wondered why the passport office requires the said letter from MATRACHHAYA on its letterhead and the details of Fixed Deposit of Fifteen thousand etc. even after all the relevant documents related to the adoption of his daughter, (adopted over 4 years ago) had been submitted by him to the passport office.
3. The Commission after hearing the submissions of both sides, directs the passport officer to hold a personal hearing with the Appellant to explain to him the formalities which still need to be completed and also to clarify his(Appellant's) doubts and to also allow the Appellant to inspect the passport file of Varsha so that the Appellant can glean from it the reasons for the delay in issuance of his daughter's passport. It is also strongly recommended that the passport officer reconsider his demand for the details of the Fixed Deposit in the light of the fact that all relevant documents related to Varsha's adoption by the Appellant have already been furnished by the Appellant to him (passport officer) . The Appellant may be advised about the decision in this regard during the hearing . The inspection may be completed by 9.4.11.
4. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Anoop Agarwal H.No.36, Sukh Sagar Valley Pollipather Jabalpur 482 008 Madhya Pradesh
2. The Public Information Officer (along with copy of the letter dt.27.7.10) Regional Passport Office Gangotri Complex T.T.Nagar Bhopal 462 003
3. The Appellate Authority Ministry of External Affairs O/o JS(CPV), CPV Division Patiala House Annexe Tilak Marg New Delhi
4. Officer Incharge, NIC