Central Information Commission
Mryash Thomasmannully vs Passport Office on 4 March, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No. - 308, 2nd Floor, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.
Website: cic.gov.in
File No. CIC/KY/A/2015/901167
Appellant : Shri Yash Thomas Mannully
Advocate, Justitia, Jose Raphael Building
Syrian Church Road, Ernakulam-682031
Public Authority : The Dy. Passport Officer & CPIO
M/o. External Affairs, Regional Passport Office,
Passport Office Buildings, Panampillay Nagar, P.O. Cochin-682036
Date of Hearing : 04.03.2016
Date of Decision : 04.03.2016
Presence:
Appellant : Shri Dileep Poolakkot, Learned Advocate, Authorized by Appellant
CPIO : Shri P. Roychaudhuri, Learned Advocate
FACTS:
I. Vide RTI application dated 15.05.2015, the appellant sought information on 4 issues.
II. CPIO, vide its response dated 25.05.2015, denied to provided the information u/s 8(1)(j).
III. The First Appeal (FA) was filed on 04.06.2015, as desired information not provided.
IV. First Appellate Authority (FAA), vide his order dated 04.08.2015, upheld the views of CPIO.
V. Grounds for the Second Appeal filed on 13.09.2015, are contained in the Memorandum of Second Appeal.
HEARING Shri Dileep Poolakkot, Learned Advocate, on behalf of Appellant, as well as Shri P. Roychaudhuri, Learned Advocate, on behalf of Respondents, appeared before the Commission personally and made the submissions at length.
DECISION Page 1 of 3 It would be seen here that the appellant, vide his RTI Application dated 15.05.2015, sought information from the respondents on 4 issues. Respondents, vide their response dated 25.05.2015, allegedly provided the required information to the appellant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid response, FA was filed by the appellant on 04.06.2015 before the FAA, who vide his order dated 04.08.2015, upheld the decision of CPIO. Hence, a Second Appeal before this Commission.
2. It is pertinent to mention here that the CPIO, vide his response dated 25.05.2015, denied the required information to the appellant by taking a plea under section 8(1) (j) read with Section 11(1) of the RTI Act 2005. Further, learned FAA, vide his order dated 04.08.2015, disposed of the FA by upholding the views of CPIO.
3. During hearing of the appeal, it is admitted by Shri Dileep Poolakkot, Learned Advocate, that the information sought by the appellant vide issues no. 1, 2 & 3 of his RTI application dated 15.05.2015, pertains to Third Party Information, as such, respondents have correctly invoked section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005, while denying the required information against issues no. 1, 2 & 3. However, he is not satisfied with the reply given against issue no. 4.
4. It is further clarified by Shri Dileep Poolakkot, that appellant vide issue no. 4 only wants to know that whether the holder of particular Indian Passport has surrendered or not, which should be replied by the respondents in "Yes" or "No. It is further submitted by him that appellant should have been provided such information on the basis of larger public interest as defined under section 8(2) of the RTI Act 2005.
5. It is worth to mention here that Section 8(2) of the RTI Act 2005, envisages as under:
"Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with subsection (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests."
6. The Commissioner heard the submissions made by Shri Dileep Poolakkot, Learned Advocate, on behalf of Appellant, as well as Shri P. Roychaudhuri, Learned Advocate, on behalf of Respondents, at length. The Commission also perused the case-file thoroughly; specifically, nature of issues raised by the appellant in his RTI application dated 15.05.2015, respondent's response dated 25.05.2015, FAA's order dated 04.08.2015, other material made available on record and also the grounds of memorandum of second appeal.
Page 2 of 37. The Commission is of the considered view that the appellant has been deprived by the respondents deliberately from having the benefits of the RTI Act 2005, even after lapse of more than nine months period. Thus, the respondents have defeated the very purpose of the RTI Act 2005 for which it was legislated by Parliament of India. It is also admitted fact that, as on date, respondents failed to provide the required information to the appellant. As such, the Commission feels that appellant's second appeal deserves to be allowed partly i.e. against issue no. 4 only. Therefore, it is allowed accordingly.
8. In view of the above, the respondents are hereby directed to provide the complete and categorical information, against issue no. 4, to the appellant as per his RTI application, in accordance with the provisions of RTI Act 2005, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to this Commission. If need be, Section 5(4) of the RTI Act 2005 may also be invoked in the matter.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.A. Khan Yusufi) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy (Krishan Avtar Talwar) Deputy Secretary The Dy. Passport Officer & CPIO M/o. External Affairs, Regional Passport Office, Passport Office Buildings, Panampillay Nagar, P.O. Cochin-682036 Shri Yash Thomas Mannully Advocate, Justitia, Jose Raphael Building Syrian Church Road, Ernakulam-682031 Page 3 of 3