Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Premasis Sahu vs Embassy Of India, Washington, Usa on 29 March, 2022

                                के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                       Central Information Commission
                            बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                        नई द ली,
                              ली New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/EIWUS/A/2020/681932

Shri Premasis Sahu                                           ...   अपीलकता /Appellant
                                 VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, Embassy of India, Washington                      ...   ितवादीगण /Respondent
Ministry of External Affairs
Through: Shri Subhash Agrawal - RTI Consultant

Date of Hearing                       :   28.03.2022
Date of Decision                      :   29.03.2022
Chief Information Commissioner        :   Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on              :   02.03.2020
PIO replied on                        :   03.03.2020
First Appeal filed on                 :   02.04.2020
First Appellate Order on              :   -
2ndAppeal/complaintdated              :   16.08.2020

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 02.03.2020 seeking information on the following points:-

1. Please provide the most recent permanent address in India of Mr. Priyam Raut as per the records of Ministry of External Affairs.

2. Please confirm as per the records of MEA, the previous Indian addresses (if any) of Mr. Priyam Raut from January 2013 till date.

The PIO/First Secretary (PIC) vide letter dated 03.03.2020 replied as under:-

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.04.2020 which remained unadjudicated.

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

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearing was scheduled through video conference after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are heard through video conference and the reiterated their respective contentions. The Respondent added that apart from the fact that the information sought by the Appellant is legally exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, such information is not held by the Respondent public authority and hence could not have been provided to the Appellant.

Decision:

Upon examination of the facts of the case, the Commission finds no legal infirmity in the denial of information by the Respondent, in view of the judgment dated 19.02.2014 in Union of India vs. R Jayachandran [W.P.(C) 3406/2012], whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that passport related information is personal in nature and cannot be disclosed to a third party information seeker, under the RTI Act. Moreover, as contended by the Respondent, the information is not even held by or in the custody of the public authority and could not have been provided even otherwise to the Appellant.

In the light of the above discussion, no further action is warranted in this case.

The appeal is disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha (वाई.

वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2