Central Information Commission Judgements

Ms.Surekha Vengala vs Regional Passport Office, … on 11 February, 2009

Central Information Commission
Ms.Surekha Vengala vs Regional Passport Office, … on 11 February, 2009
             Central Information Commission
                                                            CIC/AD/A/09/00112

                                                         Dated February 11, 2009

Name of the Appellant                  :   Ms.Surekha Vengala

Name of the Public Authority           :   Regional     Passport             Office,
                                           Secunderabad

Background

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dt.28.7.08 with the CPIO, RPO,
Secunderabad. The Appellant stated that her husband Mr.Manohar Vengala is
prime accused in complaint filed by her under FIR#353 in the year 2004
under Dowry Harassment Act. RPO, Hyderabad impounded her husband’s
passport on the request from Bowenpally police as the criminal proceedings
are pending. Her husband has fled to USA. Non bailable arrest warrants
were pending on her husband since 2005. Based on the information given by
the Appellant, the policy arrested Mr.Manohar Vengala on 21.7.08 after his
return from USA. Police has seized his renewed passport along with old
passport. She stated that Mr.Manohar Vengala could obtain a renewed
passport in USA from Embassy of India, Washington while his original
passport was under impounded status. In view of the above, the Appellant
requested for the following information:

i) Did the RPO, Hyderabad intimated Embassy of India, Washington DC
about the impounding of Mr.Manohar Vengala’s Passport in 2005?

ii) How passport authorities renewed Mr.Manohar Vengala’s Passport
while his original passport is in impounded status? Detailed reasons be
provided

iii) What action is being initiated for canceling/impounding the illegally
renewed passport now? If no action is being initiated, reasons be provided
The Appellant also mentioned that criminal proceedings are still pending in
XIII Addl. CMM Court, Nampally, Hyderabad with CC# 402/2005. The PIO
replied on 21.8.08 denying the information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI
Act. Not satisfied with the reply, the Appellant filed an appeal dt.2.9.08 with
the Appellate Authority. In her appeal, the Appellant stated the following:

i) The information asked is more related to an action being taken by RPO
about a public document i.e. Passport

ii) Passport is not a personal document in light of Passport Act which
clearly says that Passport is property of Govt. of India. Hence RPO,
Hyderabad should not treat this as personal information

iii) There is no invasion of privacy here as original passport was already
impounded by Police whereas the criminal case filed by her was pending
execution of trails as the prime accused was absconding.

iv) There is definitely public interest involved as this can happen to any
one which would help criminals to take advantage of procedural lapses
involved in the system. As the matter is with the police enforcement as a
criminal offence, it can not be treated as personal information.
Appellate Authority replied on 29.9.08 upholding the decision of the CPIO. He
also added that in view of the details given by the Appellant, the matter was
taken up with RPO, Hyderabad who informed them that they have already
referred this issue to Embassy of India in Washington. The Appellant filed a
second appeal dt.18.11.08 before CIC.

2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner, scheduled the
hearing on February 11, 2009.

3. Both the Appellant and the Respondent were not present during the hearing.

Decision

4. The Commission noted from the Appellate Authority’s order that the matter of
Appellant’s spouse’s passport has been taken up with the Embassy of India,
Washington. It may be noted that the Appellant being a single mother with a
7 year old son whose father is allegedly involved in a criminal case has the
right to be provided with information regarding the status of any
cancellation/seizure of the renewed passport of her husband. The
Commission, accordingly, directs the CPIO to follow up directly with the
Embassy of India, Washington and inform the Appellant within 20 days of
receipt of this Order, about the outcome of referring the issue to Embassy of
India in Washington.

5. The appeal is disposed off.

(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:

(K.G.Nair)
Designated Officer

Cc:

1. Mr.Surekha Vengala
H.No.8-7-198A/2
No.2, Stalworth Homes
PV Enclave
Samatha Nagar
Old Bowenpally
Secunderabad 500 011

2. The CPIO
Regional Passport Office
Ministry of External Affairs
Kummaraguda
Secunderabad 500 003

3. The Appellate Authority
Ministry of External Affairs
Patiala House Annexe
Tilak Marg
New Delhi

4. Officer in charge, NIC