Central Information Commission
Mstikun Nisha vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 23 July, 2014
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
CLUB BUILDING (NEAR POST OFFICE)
OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI - 110 067
TEL: 01126179548
Decision No. CIC/DS/C/2013/000666/VS/07347
Appeal No. CIC/DS/C/2013/000666/VS
Dated: 23.07.2014
Appellant: Ms. Tikum Nisha, W/o Alimullaha,
R/o VillageDhanewa, Dhanai,
TolaGarduwa, P.S. Kotwali,
Distt. Maharajganj, U.P.
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer,
Regional Passport Office, Lucknow,
C/o SO (CPVRTI),
Ministry of External Affairs,
Patiala House Annexe,
Tilak Marg, New Delhi 110001.
Date of Hearing: 08.07.2014
ORDER
RTI Application:
1. The appellant filed two RTI applications dated 25.10.2012 and 27.11.2012 seeking information on certain points, relating to her passport. The response of the PIO is not on record. The appellant filed a second appeal dated 23.01.2013 with the State Information Commission, Lucknow which was forwarded to CIC on 19.11.2013.
Hearing:
2. Appellant's husband (Shri A. Khan) was present on behalf of the Appellant and was heard through video conferencing. The respondent participated in the hearing personally.
3. Appellant's representative referred to RTI application dated 27.11.2012 and stated that no information was provided to the appellant. The appellant's representative stated that his wife and he both had applied for passport on 21.11.2011 to go for Haj in the year 2012. He stated that police verification was done on time and all the papers were sent to the Lucknow Passport Office on 14.12.2011 The appellant's representative stated that there was urgency also because she had to go on Haj with her husband in a few months later.
4. The appellant's representative stated that the appellant rushed here and there and met the concerned officials but to no avail. It is in this context that the appellant wanted to know the fate of the papers that had been submitted by her and when will the passport be issued. The appellant stated that Passport official had intentionally refused the passport to his wife.
5. The representative of the appellant also stated that passport was even issued to a person who applied for passport after the appellant. He also stated that in the year 2012, the government had paid Rs.25,000/ to each person for Haj visit and now the government is paying Rs.13,000/. The representative of the appellant stated that he will therefore be subjected to financial loss.
6. The respondent stated that whatever information was available with them had already been provided to the appellant on 08.04.2013. In brief the respondent stated that the passport application of the appellant was closed and filed, and that the appellant will have to apply afresh.
Decision:
7. The respondent is directed to provide information to the appellant as sought in the RTI application within 30 days of this order.
The appeal is disposed of. Copy of the decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Sd/ (Vijai Sharma) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (V.K. Sharma) Designated Officer