Central Information Commission
Mr.Pradeep Bhanot vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 22 October, 2010
Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2010/001100
Dated: October 22, 2010
Name of the Applicant : Shri Pradeep Bhanot
Name of the Public Authority : M/o External Affairs, Passport Office, Ghaziabad
Background
1. The RTI application was filed by the Applicant on 30.11.09 with the Passport Officer cum CPIO, Ghaziabad seeking date of birth of one Ms. Anishya Hardas, holder of Passport No.E0597412. He stated in his RTI application that the CPIO had already replied to him in response to his earlier letter dated 24.9.09 stating that the information cannot be furnished without her consent, however, he had conveyed to the Applicant vide his letter dated 16.10.09 that she had refused to give her consent. Now he is seeking the same information once again. The CPIO replied on 6.1.10 denying the information under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. He also transferred the application to the concerned section for taking further necessary action. On not receiving any further reply, the Applicant filed his first appeal on 3.3.10 seeking the information once again. The Appellate Authority in his order dated 5.4.10 upheld the decision of the CPIO and further stated that if the Appellant wants, he is free to lodge a complaint before the competent authority.
2. The hearing which was to be held on 30.8.10 at 2.45 pm was adjourned as the Appellant was not present and also since the matter pertained to a third party. The Commission decided to hear the third party as also the Appellant and the Respondents on 22.10.10 at 3.15 pm.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, accordingly scheduled the hearing for October 22, 2010.
3. Shri Amrendra Kr. Sengar, PIO, Ghaziabad represented the Public Authority. Mrs. Anishya Hardas, the third party was also present on the date of hearing.
4. The Appellant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. During the hearing when the Commission questioned the Respondent about any birth certificate having been produced by the Passport holder (third party) at the time of renewing her passport which had expired, the Respondent replied that only a copy of a document showing her date of birth as 29.12.48 was provided by the passport holder since the other details were already available with the passport office.
6. In response to the Appellant's allegation that the third party had furnished the wrong date of birth along with her application for her passport, (the Appellant had managed to obtain a date of birth certificate indicating that the birth date was 29.12.1947), Mrs. Anishya Hardas, the third party submitted that the Appellant is her own younger brother and that a dispute is ongoing between them over some property. She explained that the date of birth 29.12.48 was the date entered by her late father in the application form when she joined college in 1968 and that she has been using the date ever since in all cases where her date of birth is required, including her passport. She stated that she does not possess a birth certificate. According to her even in her driving license which was issued to her on 17.5.1977 her date of birth had been mentioned as 29.12.1948, indicating that she had been using the date of birth 29.12.48 for more than 40 years. According to her the driving license of 1977 proves that her brother's allegation that she had provided the wrong date of birth deliberately is not correct. The third party produced the driving license before the undersigned who after inspecting the same confirmed the date of birth in the document as 29.12.48.
7. When the Respondent produced before the undersigned the birth certificate of the third party which was submitted to him by the Appellant in support of his complaint indicating the date of birth as 29.12.1947, it was noted that the certificate was prepared by the Local Registrar, Births and Deaths , Ludhiana only on 5.8.09 giving rise to some doubt about the authenticity of the certificate. The third party on her part denied having ever seen the birth certificate produced by the Appellant (her brother) in support of his contention that she had furnished the wrong date of birth .
8. The Commission having inspected all the relevant documents noted that the date of birth of Mrs. Anishya Hardas has been continuing as 29.12.1948 since 1968 till date and hence is convinced that she has not deliberately provided any wrong information to the passport office. Since no other documents had been provided by the third party at the time of renewal of the passport, and since the Commission has already established that the date of birth given by the third party was 29.12.48, directs the PIO to provide a copy of the proof of date of birth provided by the third party to the Appellant at the time of renewal of her passport, as the element of confidentiality no longer exists. The document may be provided by end November, 2010.
9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(G.Subramanian) Deputy Registrar Cc:
1. Shri Pradeep Bhanot Advocate H.No.2, Sector18 Chandigarh Punjab
2. The Public Information Officer M/o of External Affairs Passport Office, CGO ComplexI Kamla Nehru Nagar Hapur Road Ghaziabad
3. The Appellate Authority M/o External Affairs O/o the Joint Secretary (CPV) Patiala House Annexe New Delhi
4. Smt. Anishya Hardas W/o Shri Ramesh Shridhar Hardas H.No.J69, Sector25 Gautam Budh Nagar Noida (UP) - 2010301
5. Officer Incharge, NIC