Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Chuhelika Biswas Ray vs Passport Office on 5 September, 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/PASOF/A/2021/607714

Smt. Chuhelika Biswas Ray                                     ...   अपीलकता /Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO, DPO, MEA, Regional Passport Office                 ...   ितवादीगण /Respondent
West Bengal

Date of Hearing                       :    05.09.2022
Date of Decision                      :    05.09.2022
Chief Information Commissioner        :    Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on               :   29.10.2020
PIO replied on                         :   03.11.2020
First Appeal filed on                  :   20.11.2020
First Appellate Order on               :   07.12.2020
2ndAppeal/complaint received on        :   04.03.2021

 Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated29.10.2020 seeking information on the following points:-

I Chuhelika Biswas Ray legally married wife of Sujay Chandra Biswas as per the scope of RTI Act, 2005 I am asking for some information as guaranteed U/S 6 (1) of RTI Act, 2005 as some disputes (criminal and matrimonial cases on his name) are going on between us. He is continuously threatening he will escape outside of India to avoid giving me monetary relief which has been due approx. 3-4 lakhs as per court order. There has an highly chance that he may escape obviously. So, as per RTI Act. 2005 I want following information about him - 1) A certified copy of passport (which includes all details) of Sujay Chandra Biswas, S/o - Bidhubhusan Biswas, Address - Bahadurpur, Dhaniakhali, Dist- Hooghly, Pin - 712309 2) When passport was issued on his name officially.

The PIO/DPO, MEA, Regional Passport Office, vide letter dated 03.11.2020 replied as under:-

Disclosure of information to third party is not permissible under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005.

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.11.2020. The FAA/Regional Passport Officer, Kolkata vide order dated 07.12.2020 held as under:-

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

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 30.08.2022 reiterating her contentions as already mentioned in the Second Appeal. She has mentioned various cases pending between her and her husband arising out of their matrimonial dispute and annexed the related documents.

The appellant participated in the hearing along with her father Shri Gaurango Lal Ray and Adv. Shyamul Rai, through video conferencing. Adv Shyamul Rai submitted that a large amount of alimony has been awarded in favour of the Appellant by the court in a divorce case filed against her husband. Since a substantial amount of monetary relief has been granted to her, her husband can flee the country anytime. The details of passport of her husband are required to file a petition before the HC to prevent him from fleeing from justice.

The Respondent represented by Shri P. Roychaudhari, Advocate participated in hearing through video conferencing. He submitted that information sought by the Appellant is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j). In support of his contention he also relied upon decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in UOI v R. Jayachandran W.P.(C) 3046/2012 dated 19.02.2014.

Decision:

Upon hearing the averments put forth by the parties, the Commission is of the considered opinion that an appropriate response has been provided to the Appellant. As regards the apprehension of the Appellant that her husband will flee from the country, based on such apprehension she can approach an appropriate forum since no relief can be granted under RTI Act.

In light of the above, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. The apprehension of the Appellant cannot be resolved through the RTI Act, 2005 and she is advised to seek appropriate legal remedy.

With the above observations, instant Second 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 3 of 3