Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2010/000957
CIC/AD/A/2010/000958
CIC/AD/C/2010/000787
Dated August, 13, 2010
Name of the Appellant : Mr. Manikandan Vathan Chettiar
Name of the Public Authority : MEA, Chennai
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTI application dated 27.02.2010, with the RPO, Chennai, stating the
following:
(a) Recently one Mrs. Sumathi of Chennai passport office was arrested by CBI in a massive human
trafficking fraud. A similar scam was unearthed from Madurai also. What steps has the RPO taken
identify the beneficiaries of Sumathi’s largesse and to cancel the passports that were issued by fraud.
(b) Were the intelligence agencies, Home Ministry etc informed about the possibility of terrorist groups
based in POK / Indian Jehadi groups / human traffickers / paedophiles, etc having been in any way
benefited from the passport scam of Sumathi, State Yes or No. If yes, please provide me the details
of what transpired after such steps were initiated by the MEA.
(c) Does the person called Priya Krishnamurthy, No 1, East Spurtank Road, Chetput, Chennai, possess
a valid Indian Passport? Does her father Mr. Krishnamurthy or her husband possess valid passports?
If so when were they issued? Were any of the passports issued to the 3 of them done through
Sumathi? Is there any irregularity in the issuance of such passports?
(d) From the GOI records, was Priya Krishnamurthy inside India in the month of April, 2009? If so state
the date of her arrival and date of her departure as per GOI records.
2. The PIO replied on 08.03.2010 informing the Applicant that against points (a) & (b), the case is under
investigation with the CBI Authorities. Against point (c), he said that this information is related to the third party
and providing such information may harm or invade the privacy of the individual. Against point (d), he stated
that his office does not maintain the Applicant’s travel details. Being aggrieved with this reply, the Applicant
filed his First Appeal on 23.03.2010 stating that the reply he got from the CPIO is irrelevant and inappropriate.
On not receiving any reply from the Appellate Authority, he filed his Second Appeal before the Commission
requesting that the CPIO be directed to provide the information and also award penalties prescribed by
Section 20.
3. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the hearing for August 13,
2010.
4. Mr. K.S. Daulat Thameem, RPO cum PIO represented the Public Authority and was heard through
Video Conferencing.
5. The Appellant was present during the hearing and was also heard through video conference.
Decision
6. It is clear from the PIO’s reply that with regard to points (a), (b) no action has been taken by the
passport office since the CBI is still investigating the case. On perusal of submissions on record, the
Commission directs the PIO to provide the information against point (c) and with regard to Point (d),
since the information pertains to the immigration department, M/o Home Affairs, the Respondent is
directed to transfer the RTI application to the concerned PIO. The Appellant is also advised to file a
fresh RTI application with the concerned Public Authority and obtain information against point 4.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Mr. Manikandan Vathan Chettiar,
Advocate,
263, Additional Law Chambers,
High Court,
Madras,
Tamil Nadu
2. The Public Information Officer,
Ministry of External Affairs,
Regional Passport Office,
Shastri Bhavan No 26,
Haddows Road,
Chennai 600006
3. The Appellate Authority,
Ministry of External Affairs,
CPV Division,
Patiala House Annexe,
Tilak Marg,
New Delhi 110001
4. Officer in charge, NIC