Central Information Commission
CIC/OK/A/2008/001063
Dated September 1st , 2009
Name of the Applicant : Mr. Bhagwan K Chandnani
Name of the Public Authority : Ministry of External Affairs, New
Delhi.
Adjunct to order dated 23.10.2008 and 20.04.2009
1. Shri Bhagwan K. Chandnani of Mumbai filed an RTI-application with the Public
Information Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi on 14.02.2008 wherein
he sought passport details of two individuals. The PIO vide his letter dated
28.02.2008 responded to the RTI application. Dissatisfied with the CPIO's reply,
the Appellant filed First Appeal on 10.03.2008 which was subsequently decided
vide FAA's order dated 24.03.2008.
2. Being aggrieved by the order of the FAA, the Appellant filed an Appeal before the
CIC on 15.07.2008, which was registered in the Commission on 18/08/2008.
During the hearing on 23.10.2008, it was observed by the Commission that in
view of the provision of the Act, the third party clause could be overridden in case
there was any public interest involved. Therefore, the Appellant was given one
more opportunity to establish by written submission that the matter has an
element of public interest and was not merely a case of a private dispute. He was
directed to make such submission by 14 November 2008 and in the event of non
receipt of any communication from the Appellant by that date, the appeal will be
treated as finally disposed of.
3. Subsequently, the Commission passed an order dated 20.04.2009, based on
documents and submissions of the Appellant observing that in the instant case
public interest outweighed protection of private interest thereby overriding the
Third Party clause. The Commission accordingly directed the Respondent Public
Authority to provide the information within 15 working days of receipt of the
order.
4. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the
hearing on 26th August, 2009.
5. Mr. Arvind Deep, CPIO, Shri Pabitra Roychaudhuri and Shri S.M Chand, Shri M.K.
Nayak were present during the hearing.
6. The Applicant, Shri Bhagwan Chandnani was present during the hearing.
Decision
7. The representative from the MHA submitted that since the information sought
related to the CPV Division of the MEA, hence the application had been forwarded
to the concerned authority to furnish the information. A representative from the
IB was also present, at the request of the MHA, though he had not been
summoned by the CIC. The officer representing IB voluntarily disclosed that the
IB also has no information in this regard. The counsel for the MEA submitted that
the complaint of the Appellant was rather of the nature of a grievance, related to
issues which cannot be agitated at the CIC. In so far as providing information
related to the Passport/s is concerned, as sought by the Appellant in his RTI
application, the RPO, Mumbai had responded vide its communication dated
03.07.2009 that as per information available in their Centrally Computerised
Database, no passports have been issued to the concerned persons, hence no
further information to this effect is available with the RPO. The information about
the Centrally Computerised Database containing data related to passports being
available and accessible all over the country at all RPOs simultaneously and
similarly as it was in the Central office, was confirmed by the counsel appearing
for the MEA.
8. From the submissions of the Respondent Public Authorities, the position emerges
that the information as sought by the Appellant is not available in the official
records, more so in view of the fact that the maintenance of data pertaining to
Indians traveling abroad has commenced only recently as a matter of policy for
security reasons. Even the computerisation of the data has started only as lately
as November 2005, whereas the information sought pertains to the period prior to
this. In the light of the aforesaid submissions it is the considered opinion of the
Commission that the MEA shall file an affidavit in support of its contentions stating
that no further information is available in their official records. It is furthermore
observed by the Commission that this Commission is only empowered to provide
information that is available and/or exists in official records. In the event that the
same is not available, the Appeal shall be treated as closed upon submission of
the affidavit, as directed hereinabove, to the Appellant by MEA under intimation to
the CIC.
The Appellant sought to draw the attention of the Commission to another RTI application
pursuit whereof had brought to light that some inputs were made available in this regard
by the Embassy of Oman. However that being a separate application, the Commission
directs that the same be pursued separately with liberty to the Appellant to do so at the
appropriate stage.
Decision in the matter was reserved and pronounced in open Court on 1st September
2009.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian)
Assistant Registrar
Cc:
1. Mr. Bhagwan K Chandnani,
C/o Kim Chemicals, 213,
Princess Street,
Mumbai- 400002
Maharashtra
2. The CPIO
Mr. R.N. Kajla,
M/o External Affairs,
Patiala House Annexe,
Tilak Marg, New Delhi
3. The Appellate Authority
M/o External Affairs,
Patiala House Annexe- 1,
Tilak Marg, New Delhi
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC