In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001308
Date of Hearing : February 2, 2011
Date of Decision : February 2, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Naren Prahladbhai Patel
"Shremin"
33, Vidhata Society
K.K.Nagar Road,Ghatiodia
Ahmedabad - 380061.
Applicant was not present.
Respondent(s)
Ministry of External Affairs
Regional Passport Office
Opp. L.D.Engineering Hostel
Gulab Tekra
Ahmedabad.
Respondent was not present.
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
Decision Notice
As given in the decision
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2010/001308
Adjunct to the Captioned CIC Order dated 15.11.2010.
Background
1. The decision in the Captioned Order No.CIC/AD/2010/001308 dated 15.11.2010 is as follows:
“The Commission after hearing both sides is of the opinion that the third party should be given a
chance to put forward her arguments before the Commission before the decision is taken about the
disclosure of papers submitted by her for her passport application. Accordingly it is decided to
adjourn the hearing and to hold another hearing on the matter with the three parties present including
the Appellant, the Respondent and the third party through video conferencing on 6.12.2010 at 4 p.m.”
A hearing notice was accordingly sent to the Appellant and the Respondent on 14.1.2011 directing
them to appear for a hearing on 6.12.2010, which was again rescheduled to 2.2.11. The Respondent
had been informed during the first hearing by the undersigned to convey her direction to the third
party to appear for the hearing on the said date.
Decision
2. In the instant case decision has been given in the absence of the three parties. The Commission
reviewed the reasons for which the Appellant had sought the information. The reasons are as
follows:
th
“Brahmbhatt Indumati Morlidhar obtained Passport No. E.9461418 issued on June 15 2004, under
Tatkaal Scheme, in which she has provided incorrect residential address. Further proof of the same
offence has been enclosed (as per Encloslure – 2 which is statement given by her in Ghatlodia
Police Station on July 14, 2004) in which she has stated that since 2001 she is staying at
Gandhinagar. And (Enclosure – 3 : Charge sheet filed against her (accused No.15) on July 8, 2006)
in which her address shown is of Gandhinagar.”
The Appellant further added : “If permissible under RTI Act 2005, kindly attested copies of relevant
papers filed by Brahmbhatt Indumati Murlidhar (accused No. 15 of the said Charge Sheet) for
obtaining Passport No. E.9461418 issued on June 15, 2004 under Tatkaal Scheme, i.e. Annexure –
F and annexure – I.”
If under RTI 2005, it is not permissible to part on the information to me kindly provide the same
information to Ghatlodia Police station , so that they can take legal action against the concerned
persons. ”
3. The Commission noted that the Appellant in his appeal to the Commission had sought Passport
details of 13 individuals who allegedly had been charged under IPC Sections 406, 420, 465, 467 471, 120(b),
477 and 477(a) and had been granted Anticipatory Bail on condition of surrendering their passports to the
local police station. However, it was also noted that the Appellant was able to provide the passport number
of only one of the 13 individuals , namely, Brahmbhatt Indumati Murlidhar and that the passport numbers of
the remaining 12 , without which no details can be traced out by the Regional passport office, had been
furnished. It is important for the Appellant to realize at this stage that the computerized system in the passport
office allows retrieval of details of individuals only through passport numbers and that the opposite is not
possible easily ie. location of passport numbers through names.
4. On careful consideration of the facts of the matter, and also in view of the Appellant’s own suggestion
that the matter may be referred to a police station in the event the information is denied to him on any ground,
it is suggested that the Appellant approach the concerned police station with a fresh RTI application/complaint
about any information required from them about the 12 individuals whose passport numbers are not available
with him. As for his complaint that Brahmabhatt Indumati Murlidhar had furnished incorrect information for
obtaining her passport, it is suggested that the Appellant make use of the mechanism already in place to
redress such grievances. The Appellant is advised to file a complaint with the passport office providing the
name, passport number and also including any supporting documents. The Commission strongly recommends
that the passport officer/Appellate Authority enquire into the matter and take appropriate action based on the
outcome of the enquiry and to keep the Appellant informed about the outcome of the enquiry and of any
action taken against Ms. Murlidhar, preferably by end March, 2011.
5. A copy of this order may be sent to the Appellate Authority, by the passport officer.
6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc:
1. Shri Naren Prahladbhai Patel
“Shremin”
33, Vidhata Society
K.K.Nagar Road,Ghatiodia
Ahmedabad – 380061.
2. The Public Information Officer
Ministry of External Affairs
Regional Passport Office
Opp. L.D. Engineering Hostel
Gulab Tekra
Ahmedabad.
3. The Appellate Authority
Ministry of External Affairs
O/o the JS (CPV)
Patiala House Annexe
Tilak Marg
New Delhi
4. Ms Indumati Morlidhar Brahmbhatt
510/1, Sector 8
Near Ch – 2
Gandhi Nagar.