Central Information Commission
Shri Amar Singh Soni vs Rpo, Jaipur on 27 November, 2009
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/C/2009/001470
Dated November 27, 2009
Name of the Applicant : Shri Amar Singh Soni
Name of the Public Authority : RPO, Jaipur
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.21.8.09 with the PIO, RPO, Jaipur stating that he had submitted a application for passport under 'Tatkal Scheme' on 17.10.08 and that no action has been taken on his application. He sought information against various points related to rules, receipt and dispatch of his application, action to be taken against officials etc. The PIO replied on 7.9.09 furnishing point wise information and informing the Applicant that no official is responsible for the delay in taking action on the passport application. Not satisfied with the reply, the Applicant filed an appeal dt.18.9.09 with the Appellate Authority reiterating his request for the information. On not receiving any reply, he filed a second appeal dt.26.10.09 before the CIC.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for November 27, 2009.
3. Shri Shrawan Kumar Verma, PIO and Shri Prashant Kumar Jha, J.H.T represented the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was heard through audio Decision
5. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant was given the date of dispatch of passport as 21.10.08 and that just before it was dispatched, on scrutiny it was found that he had not furnished his old passport details in his application form. On 21.10.08, a letter was issued to him to explain why he had suppressed facts. The Appellant vide letter dt.7.11.08 denied having any passport and based on his reply, the Passport office sent a letter to Supdt. of Police, Jaipur city on 25.3.09 along with both records to verify whether the old records they found belonged to the Appellant. On 14.7.09, the Supdt. of Police reported that both records pertain to Shri Amar Singh Soni, the Appellant. The Appellant was then asked to surrender his earlier passport or to provide an explanation for suppression of facts along with the copy of FIR lodged with the police in respect of his lost passport. The Appellant, however, instead of surrendering the passport or providing an explanation filed a complaint before the CIC. The Appellant informed the Commission that his employer might have applied for the passport and that he is not aware of this and that his employer had expired in exired in 1996..
6. After hearing the submissions of both sides, the Commission directs the Appellant to provide an explanation in writing to the PIO for suppression of facts so that the passport can be issued by the PIO within 15 days of receipt of the explanation.
7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Asst. Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Amar Singh Soni H.No.10-A, Gujaron Ki Bagichi Indira Bazar Jaipur
2. The PIO Regional Passport Office J-14, Jhalana Institutional Area Jhalana Doongari Jaipur
3. Officer incharge, NIC
4. Press E Group, CIC