In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/C/2010/000182
File No: CIC/AD/C/2010/000183
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001068
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001424
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001425
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001426
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001428
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001429
Date of Hearing : May 13, 2011
Date of Decision : May 13, 2011
Parties:
Appellant
Ms. Sushma Verma
E/o Shri Padam Verma
R/o H. No. 79/21,
Street No. 5, Raj Nagar,
Khandsa Road
Gurgaon 122 001
The Appellant was present through her representative Rajesh Verma
Respondents
Embassy of India in Lebanon
31, Kantari Street,
Sahmarani Bldg.
Beirut 11072092
Embassy of India in Lebanon
No. 239 IBRAHIM Street,
Ras Beirut PO Bo NO 1135240
Beirut, Lebanon
CPV Division
M/o External Affairs
Patiala House
Tilak Marg
New Delhi
Represented by: Shri P. Roychaudhary, Counsel for the CPV Division, MEA
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
As given in the decision
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/C/2010/000182
File No: CIC/AD/C/2010/000183
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001068
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001424
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001425
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001426
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001428
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001429
ORDER
Background
1. The present proceeding emanates from the petition dated 24.01.2011, filed by the Appellant, Ms.
Sushma Verma alleging that the Respondents have failed to comply with the directives of the
Commission dated 1.12.2010 in the above numbered cases (copy annexed to this order). Through
this decision, the Commission had directed the Respondents to provide to the Appellant complete
information as identified by him against points (i) to (vi) under the head ‘B’ of the said decision
.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the (vi) points of information mentioned in the decision were discussed as
given below:
Item No. (i)
3. The Counsel for the Respondents stated that the relevant file has not yet been received by them
and therefore they could not be shown to the Appellant. The Appellant, however, objected to the Counsel’s
statement and stated that he had got the information from the Indian Embassy in Lebanon, a day
before the date of hearing, over the telephone that the said file has been sent to the CPV office at
Patiala House, New Delhi, by courier and that he had been advised to inspect the file.
The Counsel stated that they had indeed received a file but it was the RTI file and not the
file related to the subject matter. He requested that he be allowed a few days time to check with the
office whether the relevant file too had been received or not by the concerned Delhi office so that
inspection can be done in Delhi by the Appellant.
4. In view of the above, it is directed that the PIO shall find out the whereabouts of the file and
obtain the same from the holder and allow disclosure of its contents to the Appellant besides providing
the Appellant with copies of documents from the file identified by him.
Item No. (ii):
5. The letter of Shri S. Gopalakrisnan, CPIO, Embassy of India, Beirut (Lebanon) dated 31.03.2011
addressed to the Commission gives the information/ clarification with regard to the present item of
query relating to the status of deportation of Shri Padam Nabh Verma. (This letter which was written
on receipt of the Commission’s decision gives detailed pointwise explanation ).
6. It is noted that the above letter completes the disclosure requirement in respect of this item of query.
It is, therefore, directed that a copy of this letter be furnished to the Appellant.
Item No. (iii) & (vi):
7. It is noted that the Respondents have not furnished this item of information as it was their belief that
the said query was in the nature of seeking clarification and not information as defined in Section
2(f) of the RTIAct.
8. However, after discussion, it was agreed to provide to the Appellant the relevant Section/clause
under which the penalty can be imposed in the situation such as the one as in the present
case. The PIO, CPV Division may accordingly furnish the above Information to the Appellant
as available on record.
Item No. (iv):
9. On being asked by the Commission the reasons for not furnishing the information against this point,
the Counsel brought new facts to the attention of the Commission in support of his denial of information to the
Appellant, facts which both parties were not aware of during the first hearing when he cited the Delhi High
Court judgment in the case of Mr. Suhas Chakma vs Ministry of External Affairs, involving disclosure of
information related to passports and documents submitted along with the passport application. According to
the judgment, “information which involves the rights of privacy of a third party in terms of Section 8(1)(j) of the
RTI Act cannot be ordered to be disclosed without notice to such third party. The authority cannot simply come
to the conclusion , that too on a concession or on the agreement of parties before it, that public interest
overrides the privacy rights of such third party without notice to and hearing such third party.”
The Counsel also stated that since the Embassy does not have the correct mailing address of the 3rd
-party, they would be unable to follow the procedure laid down in Section 11 of the RTI Act for taking
a decision on whether to provide he information to the Appellant or not. The Appellant’s
representative however, was sure that the address available with him is indeed the current address
of the third party and stated that he is also willing to provide the Commission with an affidavit to this
effect. He shared this address of the 3rd party with the Commission/Respondents. The address
reads as follows:
Shri Padam Nabh
Jospeh Tayeh Building
Near Karam Azar School
Eliyer Hair Style, St. Cherbel Center
Laycee Club, Adonis City
Distt Kesserwan, Lebanon
10. In the light of the judgment of Delhi High Court it is directed that the PIO should follow the procedure
laid down under Section 11(1) of the RTIAct and to take a decision on disclosure of papers
submitted by the 3rd party to the Indian Embassy for issuance of his passport, based on the
submission. The letter to the 3rd party inviting his submission may be sent by the Indian Embassy
to the address given hereinabove only on receipt of the copy of the affidavit from the Appellant. The
Appellant on his part to send an affidavit to the Commission with a copy to the Indian Embassy
affirming the fact that the address given by him (as mentioned hereinabove) is that of the third party.
Item No. (v):
11. It is noted that the Appellant wanted to know the reasons for early issuance of passport to the 3rd
party on 28.11.01. The letter dated 31.3.2011 from the CPIO, Indian Embassy, Beirut gives reasons
which the Commission has found to be adequate and meets the requirement of the Appellant. There
is therefore no obligation on the part of the Respondent to provide further information in this regard.
12. Information is to be provided to the Appellant before 10 July, 2011.
13. Appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Ms. Sushma Verma
E/o Shri Padam Verma
R/o H. No. 79/21,
Street No. 5, Raj Nagar,
Khandsa Road
Gurgaon 122 001
2. The Appellate Authority
Embassy of India in Lebanon
No. 239 IBRAHIM Street,
Ras Beirut PO Bo NO 1135240
Beirut, Lebanon
3. The Public Information Officer
Embassy of India in Lebanon
31, Kantari Street,
Sahmarani Bldg.
Beirut 11072092
4. The Public Information Officer
Embassy of India in Lebanon
No. 239 IBRAHIM Street,
Ras Beirut PO Bo NO 1135240
Beirut, Lebanon
5. The Public Information Officer (RTI)
US (CPVRTI)
M/o External Affairs
Patiala House
Tilak Marg
New Delhi
6. Officer Incharge, NIC