In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001134
Date of Hearing : July 21, 2011
Date of Decision : July 21, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Shri Shiv Kumar Saxena
Director
Nispaksh NGO
G64 (105)
Gali No. No.22,
Rajapuri Colony
Uttam Nagar.
New Delhi - 59.
Applicant was present.
Respondent(s)
Ministry of External Affairs
Regional Passport Office
Hudco Trikoot - 3
Bhikaji Cama Place,
R K Puram
New Delhi.
Represented by : Shri P Roy Choudhary, Advocate.
Shri Anurag Shukla, RPO, New Delhi.
Shri suresh Yadav, Asstt. RPO, New Delhi.
Information Commissioner : Mrs. Annapurna Dixit
___________________________________________________________________
In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/001134
ORDER
Background
1. The RTI Application dated 5.10.10 was filed by the Applicant with the PIO, Regional Passport Office,
New Delhi. He sought information against 10 points including the procedure that is adopted for
issuing passports, details of action taken against officials in the passport office who are responsible
for delaying the issuance of passport and on applicants who furnish fake certificates along with their
passport application etc. In particular, he sought information against seven sub points with reference
to passport no. F7121466 including the basis on which passport has been issued to the Applicant,
whether all rules were followed while issuing the passport, details of foreign travel undertaken by the
passport holder etc. The Applicant also requested that information be furnished to him in Hindi . The
PIO replied on 18.11.2010 (the delay according to him was due to a typographical mistake in the
address because which the reply was returned to the passport office) responding to the 10 points.
With regard to point 7 the PIO stated that information with regard to a third party is not being
furnished since it is personal in nature. Moreover, the information furnished about the third party is
not enough to locate the required information. He also stated that the complaint dated 4.10.10 is
under examination and that appropriate action will be taken according to the Passport Act, 1967, if
adverse remark is found against the passport holder. The Applicant thereafter filed his first appeal
on 30.12.2010 complaining that even after his request the PIO had not replied to him in Hindi and
requesting that any future correspondence with him be only made in this language. He requested for
the information once again along with copies of supporting documents. The Appellate Authority
replied on 16.3.2011 stating that the Applicant has already filed an appeal which was disposed off
vide order no. 145/JS(PSP&CPO)/10 dated 19.11.10 on its receipt in the AA’s office on 19.11.10
directing the PIO to send a suitable reply since the reply had not been received by the Appellant till
then. He further added that the second appeal sent by the Appellant to the First Appellate Authority,
dated 30.12.10 was registered only on 18.2.11 due to certain defects in the appeal. He added that
he has examined the PIO’s reply and has not found any lacuna in it. Being aggrieved with this
response the Appellant filed his second appeal before the Commission on 11.4.11 reiterating that
information has not been furnished to him in Hindi despite the facilities for translation being available
with the Ministry as evident from the AA’s order dated 16.3.11 and seeking information against
points 2,3,4,7 and 8. Narrating the grounds for applying for information under RTI he stated that his
Organization had received a letter from the wife (Mrs. Anamika Shukla) of the said third party
requesting their help in stopping her husband from traveling abroad using the passport obtained by
him on the basis of false documents/certificates. He also stated that Mrs. Shukla had requested them
also to help her with the ongoing court case in connection with her claim for maintenance allowance
for her from her husband and that Mrs. Shukla has also provided to their Organization documentary
proof of the fact that certificates furnished by her husband to the passport office were fake .
According to the Appellant a complaint was filed by him based on Mrs. Shukla’s request on 4.10.10
requesting the passport authorities to enquire into the matter and also to stop the third party from
traveling abroad so that the Court can take an early decision on the matter of maintenance
allowance. The information according to him is required at the earliest for presenting it before the
Court.
Decision
2. The Respondent during the hearing refuted the Appellant’s contention that the information has been
provided late by the PIO with the intention to delay the supply of information. He pointed out that a
typographical mistake was made in the address (brackets around no.105 which is the number of the house
were missing as per document submitted) because of which the reply envelope was returned to the passport
office which however was resent on 18.11.10 to the Appellant. The Appellant admitted to having received it on
the 20th of November. Since the Commission is not in a position to examine the veracity of the Appellant’s
contention that the delay was deliberate, it can only direct the PIO to provide the relevant documentary
evidence (proof of dispatch, speed post no. etc) of the fact that the reply was indeed sent to the Appellant
within the mandatory period of 30 days although it was not received due to the wrong address. The PIO is
however warned that such mistakes, if they become a practice will not be acceptable and to take appropriate
steps to ensure that facts as mentioned in the reply, including the address, are correct before reply is
dispatched.
3. During the hearing the Appellant reiterated his contentions as submitted in the second appeal . The
gist of his submission is as given below :
(i) The information to be provided to him in Hindi since under the RTI Act it is his Right to
do receive information in that language.
(ii) Information was received late on 20.11.10, ie late by two weeks. Hence the PIO should
be penalized.
(iii) Despite the appeal to the First Appellate Authority followed by reminders, no action
seems to have been taken on his complaint in which it has been stated clearly that the
passport of the third party has been issued on the basis of fake documents.
(iv) He particularly sought information against point 5 in which he had queried as to what
action is expected to be taken against the officials of the passport office who are
careless about verifying the authenticity of documents.
(v) He requested that information be provided to him on a CD.
(vi) He sought compensation for the delay in furnishing information.
4 The Commission on careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case decides
as follows:
5. Request for information in Hindi
In order to decide whether there is any merit in the contention of the Appellant that information has to
be provided to him only in Hindi since it is his Right to receive the same in that language, it is
important to revisit Sections 6 and 7 of the RTI Act.
Section 6 deals with Request for obtaining information.
Subsection Section 6(1) of the RTI Act states that “A person, who desires o obtain any information
under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi or in
the official language of the area in which the application is being made”
Section 7 deals with Disposal of Request.
Subsection 7(1) of the RTI Act stipulates that ……..”the Central Public Information Officer or State
Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a section under Section (6) shall, as
expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of he receipt of the request, either
provide the information on payment of such fees as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of
the reasons specified in Sections 8 and 9.”
It may be noted that while 6(1) mentions that the Applicant can apply in Hindi, English or the
official language of the area, section 7(1) on disposal of the RTI application by the CPIO or the SPIO
remains silent about the language in which the CPIO or SPIO is expected to provide the reply .
Hence the Commission finds no merit in the Appellant’s demand that he be provided information in
Hindi as a matter of Right under RTI and holds that the PIO is under no obligation to provide
information only in Hindi.
Be that as it may, in the instant case, since the Appellant has submitted that he is not comfortable
with the English language the PIO may make all efforts to provide any clarification that is required in
Hindi if resources for translation are available, to the Appellant and on CD after the Appellant
deposits the cost of the CD which should be intimated to him within 5 days of receipt of this Order. It
may however be noted that copies of any supporting documents will be provided only in the language
in which they exist in the records as translating them into Hindi will mean creation of new information
which falls outside the ambit of the RTI Act.
6. Delay in receipt of information
The Appellant demanded that penalty be imposed upon the PIO for the delay in furnishing of the
information by two weeks. The Respondent has explained the reasons for the delay in furnishing
information. According to him a typographical mistake was committed inadvertently while typing the
address of the Appellant because of which the envelope with the reply was not delivered to the
addressee but was returned to the passport office. Section 20(1) of the RTI Act states that a penalty
has to be imposed on the PIO if ” he has without any reasonable cause refused to receive an
application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under
subsection (1) of section (7) or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given
incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the
request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information.”
From the Respondent’s explanation the Commission finds no reason to attribute the delay to any
malafide intention on the part of the PIO to withhold the information. The explanation given seems to
be a reasonable cause for the delay albeit not desirable. It may be noted that this matter has already
been dealt with in para 2 hereinabove.
7. Points 5 and 7 related to verification of certificates
The complaint of the Appellant arises out of the fact that no information about the action taken on his
complaint about fake certificates having been submitted by the third party for issuance of his
passport, has been provided to him although he has been informed that the matter is under
examination. The Appellate Authority ought to have pursued this matter and ensured that the
Appellant is given a satisfactory reply instead of simply upholding the decision of the PIO. Against
point (6) the Appellant sought information on the action that is expected to be taken against officials
of the passport office who are careless and do not verify properly the genuineness of documents
submitted along with the application form. Perusal of information provided by the PIO in this regard
however indicates that the PIO has indeed replied to the point 6 by stating that the verification of
certificates is done by the police, after the pp form is referred to the DCP (SB) and that it is only after
the police verification report is obtained that the passport is issued, thereby implying that the
passport office is not responsible for verification of information given in the PP form. The
Commission finds no shortcoming in this reply, under the RTI Act. At the same time, the
Commission believes that when such a matter regarding fake certificates having been submitted as
supporting documents is brought to the attention of the passport office, along with documentary
evidence, it is imperative that action is taken to verify the veracity of the complaint and appropriate
action taken based on the outcome of the verification.
The Commission, therefore, u/s18(2) of the RTI Act, directs the PIO to take the matter up
immediately with concerned authorities in the police department, if not already done, and to initiate
an enquiry and if allegations against the third party are found to be true, to take appropriate action.
This enquiry report along with all supporting documents as also information on action taken may be
provided to the Appellant on a CD in Hindi, preferably after recovering from the Appellant the cost of
the CD. Information to be provided by 31August, 2011. Any rules available on record with regard to
action to be taken on officials of the passport office for any irregularity committed by them , as also a
copy of rules on action to be taken against a passport applicant who is found to have submitted
false documents (point 6) may also be provided to the Appellant by the same date, also on CD. The
Appellant to be informed formally in writing if such rules are not available. The Respondent to seek
from the Appellant, if required, the details about the third party required for locating the passport
details of the third party, within 5 days of receipt of this Order.
8. It is not clear to the Commission how, if the details provided about the third party are inadequate to
locate the information (as per the PIO’s reply to the RTI application) about the third party he has
stated in that very reply that the matter is under examination. There seems to be a contradiction in
the two statements.
The PIO is therefore directed to showcause as to why a penalty should not be imposed upon him for
seemingly trying to mislead the Appellant. The explanation to this notice to reach the Commission by
30 August, 2011.
9. Compensation
During the hearing the Appellant sought a compensation of Rs.50.000/ for the ‘harassment’ he had
undergone before receiving the information. The Commission in this connection noted that the
matter has already been dealt with in paras above in which it has been made clear that the PIO’s
explanation for the 15 day delay in furnishing information reflects a reasonable cause for the delay .
Hence the demand for compensation is rejected.
10. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy
(G.Subramanian)
Deputy Registrar
Cc
1. Shri Shiv Kumar Saxena
Director
Nispaksh NGO
G64 (105)
Gali No.22,
Rajapuri Colony
Uttam Nagar.
New Delhi – 59.
2. The Public Information Officer
Ministry of External Affairs
Regional Passport Office
Hudco Trikoot – 3
Bhikaji Cama Place,
R K Puram
New Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority
Ministry of External Affairs
O/o the Joint secretary (CPV)
Patiala House Annexe, Tilak Marg
New Delhi.
4. Officer in charge, NIC.
In case, the Commission’s above directives have not been complied with by the Respondents, the
Appellant/Complainant may file a formal complaint with the Commission under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act, giving
(1) copy of RTI application, (2) copy of PIO’s reply, (3) copy of the decision of the first Appellant Authority, (4) copy
of the Commission’s decision, and (5) any other documents which he/she considers to be necessary for deciding
the complaint. In the prayer, the Appellant/Complainant may indicate, what information has not been provided.