Central Information Commission
Rakesh Natarajan vs Intelligence Bureau on 29 December, 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/2021/605230
CIC/INBRU/A/2021/610519
Shri Rakesh Natarajan ... अपीलकता /Appellant
Through: Shri B Ullasavelan - Advocate
VERSUS/बनाम
1. PIO, Regional Passport Office, Chennai ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Through: Shri Gagan Gupta - Advocate
2. PIO, Intelligence Bureau
3. PIO, MHA, Foreigners Division
Through: Shri U K Sinha - CPIO/JDD;
Shri Harvinder Singh - DCIO; Shri Sumit Kumar
- Dy. Director
Date of Hearing : 28.12.2022
Date of Decision : 29.12.2022
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since the Appellant is common in these cases, the above mentioned cases are
clubbed together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2nd Appeal
No. on received on
605230 04.01.2021 25.01.2021 01.02.2021 16.02.2021 17.02.2021
610519 03.01.2021 02.02.2021 05.02.2021 15.03.2021 23.03.2021
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/PASOF/A/2021/605230 The Appellant filed anonline RTI application dated 04.01.2021 seeking information on the following:-Page 1 of 5
The CPIO/Superintendent, Regional Passport Office, Chennai, TN,vide letter dated 25.01.2021 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.02.2021. The FAA/Regional Passport Officer, MEA, vide order dated 16.02.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are duly represented and heard through video conference. The Appellant's counsel stated that his client seeks the passport details of his wife in order to seek extension of passport of his child. The Respondent's counsel reiterated that in terms of the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Union of India vs. R Jayachandran, passport details of a third party cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act as has been stated by the PIO in his reply.
Decision In the light of the aforementioned well established legal position, the PIO's reply is legally appropriate and thus upheld. Hence, no intervention is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
This appeal is disposed off accordingly.Page 2 of 5
(2) CIC/INBRU/A/2021/610519 The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated03.01.2021 seeking information on the following:-
The CPIO/Director, Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division, vide letter dated 12.01.2021 intimated that the requisite information is not available with them and transferred the RTI application to Bureau of Immigration under section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
The CPIO/Assistant Director, Intelligence Bureau, vide letter dated 02.02.2021 replied as under:-
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 05.02.2021.
The FAA/Additional Secretary, MHA, Foreigners Division, vide order dated 11.02.2021 upheld the reply of the CPIO.
The FAA/Deputy Director, Intelligence Bureau, vide order dated 15.03.2021 stated as under:-
Page 3 of 5Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the basis of the following allegations:
He has placed reliance on the following cases:
1. Soma Pandey vs. Ministry of External Affairs on 10 June, 2020 CIC/MOEAF/A/2018/158969-BJ - to establish the fact that as family, he cannot be denied information as third party
2. Shri M. Dinesh Vs. PIO, Bureau of Immigration" CIC/INBRU/A/2017/118048 opposing the exemption claimed by Respondent invoking Section 24 of the RTI Act.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from CPIO, MHA, Foreigners Division vide letter dated 15.12.2022 reiterating the above facts justifying denial of information sought by the Appellant.
The Appellant has also sent his submission vide email dated 15.12.2022, which have been duly taken on record.
Hearing was scheduled through virtual means after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties are duly represented and heard through video conference.
Decision:
Deliberations between the parties during the course of hearing reveal that the queries raised by the Appellant owe their origin to his marital dispute and the litigation pending in this regard before the Court of law. The appeal filed by the Appellant in this case is misconceived since the issue at hand cannot be addressed under the RTI Act, in view of the legal embargo as appropriately pointed out by the Respondent. The decisions cited by the Appellant are not applicable in this case because they differ on the factual premise. In the instant case, since the Appellant is involved in a matrimonial dispute with his wife who has the custody of their child, hence he is a third party in so far as information related to his estranged wife is concerned. Moreover, since there is nothing to establish the applicability of the proviso to section 24 in this case, hence the decision passed in the dicta of Shri M. Dinesh Vs. PIO, Bureau of Immigration is also not applicable in this case.Page 4 of 5
In fact the grievance which has given rise to the instant case can be addressed only by approaching the relevant Court of law, where the matrimonial dispute is pending adjudication or by filing a complaint with the Chief Passport Officer. But in either case, no relief can be granted in this case under the scope and ambit of the RTI Act.
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 यािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 of 5