Central Information Commission
Mohit Bhardwaj vs Ministry Of External Affairs on 31 July, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOEAF/A/2023/621908
Shri Mohit Bhardwaj ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Ministry of External Affairs ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26.07.2024
Date of Decision : 26.07.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.02.2023
PIO replied on : 15.03.2023
First Appeal filed on : 15.03.2023
First Appellate Order on : 02.05.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 02.05.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.02.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"Kindly provide copy of the following circular as per details below. Circular No. VI/401/4/2009 Issued by Ministry of External Affairs, CPV Division New Delhi, Dated March 24, 2009 With Subject: Imposition of penalty u/s 12 (1A) of Passport Act 1967 for not surrendering Indian passport/travelling on Indian passport after acquisition of foreign citizenship."
The CPIO, Ministry of External Affairs vide letter dated 15.03.2023 replied as under:-
"the information sought by you can not be provided as it is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (a) of the RTI Act, 2005 that relates to the information that would prejudicially affect the security of the State."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.03.2023 stating the circular sought by him through his RTI Application is already available in public domain on various embassy website, he Page 1 of 2 wants a confirmation about its existence. The FAA vide order dated 02.05.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
The Appellant has sent written submission dated 24.06.2024, reiterating the facts as already stated in the documents mentioned above.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri P Roychaudhuri - Advocate for MEA is present for hearing The Respondent alone was present during hearing and reiterated that since information sought by the Appellant was admittedly in public domain, the same was not furnished again by the PIO. On being questioned by the Commission to justify the applicability of Section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act, the counsel for the Respondent admitted inadvertence on the part of the PIO.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case reveals that though the PIO had erred in using inapplicable provision of the RTI Act in this case, nevertheless, denial of information was not wrong, considering the fact that information is already available in public domain, as stated by the Appellant himself. The Appellant has chosen not to attend or contest the appeal at hand. In the given circumstances, since the RTI query has been handled appropriately, no further intervention is warranted, in this case, under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 2 of 2 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)