Central Information Commission
Abdulrashid Gulamrasul Shaikh vs Passport Office on 12 January, 2018
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Baba Gang Nath Marg,
Munirka, New Delhi -110067
Tel : +91-11-26186535
Appeal No. CIC/PASOF/A/2017/107465
Appellant: Sh. Abdulrashid Gulamrasul Shaikh,
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer
Assistant Passport Officer,
M/o. External Affairs, Regional Passport Office,
Opp. L D Engineering College Hostel,
Gulbai Tekra,
Ahmedabad-380006
Date of Hearing: 11.01.2018
Dated of Decision: 11.01.2018
ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant filed RTI application dated 29.08.2016 seeking information regarding: procedure followed by the competent authority in respect of passport application no. AH3068072764814 of Ada Najmuddin Kureshi;
name, designation, employee ID number, educational qualification, gross annual salary of all employees engaged in the procedure of disposal of above application, total number of passport issued by the authority during the last three financial years on the basis of alternate document provided, etc.
2. The CPIO responded on 26.09.2016. The appellant filed first appeal on 24.10.2016 with the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA responded on 01.11.2016. The appellant filed second appeal on 03.02.2017 with the Commission on the ground that information should be provided to him.
Hearing:
13. The appellant participated in the hearing through VC. The respondent was represented through counsel Sh. P. Roychaudhuri who was personally present in the hearing.
4. The appellant stated that in his RTI application he has sought information about the passport details of his relative who is a minor and for this purpose he enclosed copy of authority letter from the single parent of the minor. The appellant stated that he had also given copy of judgment of family court vide which it has been mentioned that the custody of minor should be given to her mother.
5. The appellant stated that the respondent vide their reply dated 26.09.2016, had given incomplete information. The appellant further stated that, being aggrieved with the reply of CPIO, he had filed first appeal with the First Appellate Authority. The appellant stated that the First Appellate Authority disposed off the appeal by observing that the information sought is third party information which is exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
6. The respondent stated that the CPIO vide its reply dated 26.09.2016 had given complete and point-wise reply/information to the appellant.
Discussion/ observation:
7. The Commission observed that the First Appellate Authority had disposed off the first appeal in a mechanical manner without considering the facts of the case and the reply of the CPIO. A bare perusal of the RTI application, reply of the CPIO and statement made by the appellant revealed that all the queries under any stretch of imagination cannot be said to be information which pertains to a third party. Some of the information sought is absolutely in public domain and therefore the order of the First Appellate Authority suffers from perversity and legal infirmity.
Decision:
8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the order of the First Appellate Authority is set aside. The first appeal is restored to the file of the First Appellate Authority with a direction that the First Appellate Authority shall decide the first appeal and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.2
The appellant should be given an opportunity of being heard in person before passing the order.
9. The Deputy Registrar is directed to send complete file to the First Appellate Authority along with this order.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to the parties.
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (S.C. Sharma) Dy. Registrar Copy to:
First Appellate Authority M/o. External Affairs, Regional Passport Office, Opp. L D Engineering College Hostel, Gulbai Tekra, Ahmedabad-380006 3