In the Central Information Commission
at
New Delhi
File No: CIC/AD/A/2011/000304
Date of Hearing : March 9, 2011
Date of Decision : March 9, 2011
Parties:
Applicant
Ms.Samiksha Agarwal
H.No.36,
Sukh Sagar Valley Pollipather
Jabalpur 482 008
Madhya Pradesh
The Applicant appeared late for the hearing, after the Respondent left the Commission.
Respondents
Regional Passport Office
Gangotri Complex
T.T.Nagar
Bhopal 462 003
Represented by : Shri P.Roy Chaudhuri, Advocate on behalf of CPIO
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/2011/000304
ORDER
Background
1. The Applicant filed an RTI application dt.9.6.10 with the PIO, RPO, Bhopal seeking the following
information:
i) Date of first communication sent by your office to HCI London with regard to her application.
ii) Dates of follow up communication sent by your office to HCI London
iii) Photocopies of all communications sent by your office to HCI London with regard to her
application.
Smt. L.K.Vaghela, Passport Office replied on 8.7.10 as follows:
‘In this connection, you are hereby intimated that you have not given any clearance to
your previous RTI application (seems to be scanned one) which was sent through speed
post from Andheri (East) Mumbai Post Office and does not have your signature in
original on it. The envelope in which you sent the above RTI application also have
remarks as:
IF UNDELIVERED
RTI NATION
C803, Ambika Tower
PUMP HOUSE, JIJAMATA ROAD
ANDHERI (EAST), MUMBAI 400 093On the basis of all the above, it seems that you are not residing in Jabalpur (M.P)
The Applicant vide her letter dt.27.7.10 to the CPIO provided the following clarifications in response
to reply dt.29.4.10:
i) It was sent to your office on my behalf by an institute named ‘RTI Nation’ based in Mumbai.
ii) It was signed by me, scanned by me and emailed to “RTI Nation” so that they could send it
to your office on my behalf.
In response to reply dt.8.7.10, she provided the following clarifications:
i) First letter sent by your office through speed post dated 29.4.10 (at Jabalpur address) was
duly received and signed by me.
ii) My second RTI application was sent from a speed post centre in Jabalpur
iii) Second letter sent by your office through speed post dated 8.7.10 (at Jabalpur address) was
duly received and signed by me.
iv) I am enclosing an attested copy of my address proof along with this letter.
The Applicant filed an appeal dt.10.9.10 with the Appellate Authority stating that no
information has been received despite providing clarifications as sought by the PIO. On not receiving
any reply, she filed a second appeal dt.23.11.10 before CIC.
Decision
2. During the hearing, the Respondent submitted that neither the clarification nor the first appeal was
received by the passport office. He stated that all that is required for issuance of passport is for the
Appellant to complete certain formalities at the passport office al also a police verification report. The
Respondent was not sure whether a clear police verification report in the case of the Appellant had
been received by the passport office or not. The Appellant who came late after the Respondents left
submitted that she had lost her passport while she was in London and hence has applied for a fresh
passport. She added that that in response to an earlier RTI application she was informed that the
delay in issuance of passport was because the passport office is awaiting the High Commission of
India, London’s response to certain clarifications the passport office had sought from them.
According to the Appellant in the instant RTI application she had only sought the copies of
communication between the passport office and the HCI, London regarding her lost passport. She
contended that the passport office is deliberately not providing her the information she has requested
for since they had not written at all to HCI, London. She also added that a clear police verification
report has been received by the passport officer, in her case.
3. The Commission after hearing the submissions of both sides advises the Appellant to visit the
passport office as suggested by the PIO and to complete the formalities after the PIO holds a
personal hearing with her. The PIO is also directed to allow the Appellant to inspect her file when she
comes for the personal hearing. The Appellant must be provided with attested copies of
communication between the Passport Office and HCI, London, with regard to issuance of new
passport to the Appellant. The entire exercise to be over by 9.4.11 and the Appellant to submit a
compliance report by 16.4.11.
4. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions.
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy(G.Subramanian)
Deputy RegistrarCc:
1. Ms.Samiksha Agarwal
H.No.36,
Sukh Sagar Valley Pollipather
Jabalpur 482 008
Madhya Pradesh2. The Public Information Officer (along with copy of the letter dt.27.7.10)
Regional Passport Office
Gangotri Complex
T.T.Nagar
Bhopal 462 0033. The Appellate Authority
Ministry of External Affairs
O/o JS(CPV), CPV Division
Patiala House Annexe
Tilak Marg
New Delhi4. Officer Incharge, NIC