Central Information Commission

*****

No. CIC/OK/A/2007/00138
Dated: 16 January 2008

Name of the Appellant : Ms. Shabnam Parveen,

C/o Shri Mohammad Irfan,
H. No. 1111/1, Mohalla Khalapar,
Nai Abadi, Muzzafarnagar (U.P.).

Name of the Public Authority : Regional Passport Office, Ghaziabad.

DATE OF HEARING: 31.12.’07

DATE OF DECISION: 16.1.’08

ORDER

Ms. Shabnam Praveen of Muzaffarnagar had filed an RTI application dated

31 July 2006 with the PIO of Passport Office, Ghaziabad seeking information
regarding the passport details of her spouse. She also sought a copy of the
application filed by her for issue of her own passport. This application was sent
by Speed Post along with a demand draft of Rs.10/-. On not receiving any
response, the Appellant filed a first appeal addressed to the First Appellate
authority but sent it to the Passport Office Ghaziabad. This appeal was not
forwarded by Passport office, Ghaziabad, to the First Appellate Authority as a
result of which no order was passed by the first Appellate Authority. After
waiting for a considerable period the Appellant moved a second appeal before
this Commission on 19 January 2007.

2. The bench of Dr O. P. Kejariwal heard the case through video

conferencing on 23rd July 2007 .During the hearing the Appellant complained that
the RTI application dated 31st July 2006 was responded to only on 2nd May 2007
and that too in a very unusual manner. According to the Appellant, an official of

1
the Passport Office reached the Appellant’s house asking her to come to the
passport Office with details like the file number of the person whose passport
details were required. Again according to the Appellant, the representative went
to the passport Office, but still the information was denied on the grounds that it
was third party information. The Commissioner observed that he had heard of
such distressing reports about the Ghaziabad Passport Office from several
quarters and since this was a serious case, the matter was referred to a Division
Bench.

3. Accordingly parties were called for a hearing on 31 December 2007. The

Division Bench comprising of Chief Information Commissioner, Shri Wajahat
Habibullah and Information Commissioner, Dr.O.P. Kejariwal heard the matter.
The following were present:
Appellant
Mrs. Uma Mohan, authorised representative
Respondents
Shri R. Swaminathan, Joint Secretary & First Appellate Authority;
Shri R.N. Kajla, Under Secretary, MEA,
Shri S.K. Yadav, former RPO Ghaziabad
Shri Amrendra Kumar Sengar, RPO Ghaziabad represented the Respondents.

4. Opening the arguments Mrs. Uma Mohan, the representative of Appellant

Ms Shabnam Parveen, stated that till date she had not received the complete
information sought for in the original RTI application. She also contested the fact
that the concept of ‘third party information’ applies to Ms Parveen’s case as the
third party is none than the deceased husband of appellant and hence all the
information sought for should be provided to her. She also pressed for penal
action against the erring officials and vehemently argued before the Commission
to grant her compensation for the loss and detriment that she had suffered for
the lackadaisical attitude of the Public Information Officer of the Passport
Office, Ghaziabad. Besides, she also requested the Commission to direct the

2
respondents to provide her with photocopies of all the documents relating to the
passport application file of the third party i.e. the husband of the Applicant.

5. The Respondents on the other hand contended that the information sought
for is indeed ‘third party information’ as they are not sure whether the Applicant
is the sole legal heir of the third party. They also stated that they did not have
the present residential address of the third party for which they were not in a
position to invoke the provisions of section 11 of the RTI Act. They went on to
the extent of saying that in spite of several personal interactions with the
applicant, the Applicant did not bring to the notice of the Respondent that the
third party is no longer alive. As far as replying to the RTI application was
concerned, Shri Shailesh Kumar Yadav RPO & PIO Ghaziabad at the time of
servicing the application of Ms Parveen, apprised the Commission that the first
application of the applicant was registered in his office on 4th August 2006, but
the application was never put up to him, as a result of which he could not reply
to the RTI application.

Issues to be determined
1. Whether the information sought by the Applicant is ‘third party
information’.
2. Whether penal action is to be initiated under 20(1) of the RTI Act.
3. Whether any compensation under 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act is to be
granted to the applicant.
4. Whether Certified photocopies of the Passport application of the
third party is to be supplied by the Respondents.
Decision Notice:

6. Insofar as Issue at 1 is concerned, representative of the appellant argued

that since the information sought by the applicant is about her deceased
husband, the question of third party does not arise. On the other hand the
Respondent argued that any person other than the Applicant is a third party. The

3
Commission agrees with the Respondents that as per section 2(n) of the RTI Act
2005, third party means ‘a person, other than a citizen making a request for
information and includes a public authority’. As such it is obvious that even the
spouse of an Applicant is a third party vis-à-vis the Applicant and hence it was
incumbent upon the Respondents to invoke the provisions of the Section 11 of
the RTI Act.

7. However, the Commission noted that the Respondents have already

delayed responding to the application by more than six months. The Respondents
stated before the Commission that it was very difficult to locate the information
sought by the Applicant in the absence of the passport number of the third
party. To this the Applicant’s representative stated that she is in possession of
the passport number of the third party. Under the circumstances the
Commission directs the Applicant to provide the passport number of the third
party to the Respondents who in turn will provide the information requested
in the original application within 10 working days from the date of receipt of
passport number from the Applicant. This disposes of Issue no 1

8. As far as penal action under section 20(1) is concerned it is obvious that

there has been a substantial delay in replying to the RTI application. During the
hearing, Shri Shailesh Kumar Yadav, the then PIO stated that he cannot be held
responsible for the delay, as the application was never put up before him. It was
only when he received a notice from this Commission that he enquired into the
status of the application and ascertained that the application was received in the
diary section and registered on 4 August 2006. Further, this application was
handed over to Shri Deveshar Prasad, in charge of Miscellaneous Seat on the
same day to issue fee receipt and hand over the file to the RTI section for
further action. However, the latter did not take any action. As such he stated
that Shri Deveshar Prasad is responsible for this delay. Shri Sailesh Kumar Yadav
in his response also discussed the second RTI application that was received on
9.11.2006. Since this was a First appeal and not the RTI application, penal action

4
may be initiated only for the RTI application dated 31.7.06, which was received
and diarized on 4.8.2006. As per section 20(1) of the RTI Act penalty @ Rs.250
per days subject to a maximum of Rs.25, 000 shall be levied on the Public
Information Officer for every day of delay beyond the stipulated period of 30
days from the date of receipt of the application. In the instant case the
application was received on 4 August 2006 and hence it should have been replied
by 3 September 2006. However, the first reply to the application was sent only
on 2 May 2007. As such the reply was delayed by more than 100 days for which
penalty will be Rs.25, 000/-

9. Shri Shailesh Kumar Yadav, the then PIO shall show cause as to why this
penalty shall not be imposed upon him. In case he feels that he is not responsible
for this delay, he shall file a duly Notarized Affidavit identifying the officials
responsible for the delay and also apportion the number of days for which these
officials are responsible. This Affidavit along with any other explanation if any
should be filed in this Commission on or before 11th of March 2008. In case Shri
Shailesh Kumar Yadav wishes to make any oral submission he may appear
before the Commission on 11th of March 2008 at 2:30 p.m. Issue no 2 is thus
disposed of.

10. As far as the issue of compensation is concerned, the Applicant pressed

for compensation on the grounds of harassment faced by her because of the
indifferent and autocratic attitude of the Ghaziabad passport office officials. It
is a matter of fact that the Applicant was invited to the passport office for
inspection of the relevant papers but when she visited the office, inspection was
denied to her. Further, there has also been a substantial delay in replying to the
application. Although the loss suffered cannot be quantified, taking all these
factors into consideration, the Commission grants a compensation of Rs.1000/-
to the appellant Ms Shabnam Parveen, and directs the Ministry of External
Affairs to compensate Ms. Shabnam Parveen, the applicant, by paying her this
amount. The Joint Secretary (CPV) is directed to ensure that the compensation is

5
paid by way of an account payee cheque/draft drawn in favour of the Applicant
and payable at the place of residence of the Applicant as mentioned in the RTI
application and should be sent to her by speed post within 30 days from the date
of receipt of this order. This disposes of Issue no. 3
12. The fourth point at issue relates to grant of photocopies of documents in
the passport application file of the third party. This has not been appellant’s
request in the original RTI application. Ms Shabnam Parveen is therefore advised
to file a fresh RTI application for this information. However, since it has been
acknowledged by the appellant that the third party has already passed away and
the appellant is the only legal heir, the Commission directs the Applicant to file
an Affidavit duly attested by a First Class Magistrate certifying that she is the
only legal heir of her deceased husband Mohammed Tanvir i.e. the third party.
The Respondents during the hearing stated that even if the applicant produces
such an Affidavit, any other person may make a claim on the Respondent for
disclosing third party information. Since this request goes beyond the
information cleared by us for disclosure in disposing of issue no. 1, and to ensure
clear the apprehension in the mind of the Respondents on possible invasion of
privacy of their clients, the representative of Applicant is willing to file an
Indemnity Bond in which she will undertake to indemnify the Respondents for
any kind of loss caused to the Respondents for providing certified copies of the
relevant documents. These two documents shall be accompanied with the fresh
RTI application with the prescribed fee of Rs.10. Thereafter the Respondents
shall process the application as mandated u/s 7 (1) of the RTI Act 2005.

13. The Commission hereby orders accordingly.

14. Reserved in the hearing, the Decision is announced this sixteenth day of
January 2008 in open chamber.

(Wajahat Habibullah) (O.P. Kejariwal)

Chief Information Commissioner Information Commissioner

6
Authenticated true copy:

(G. Subramanian)
Assistant Registrar
19.1.’08

Cc:

1. Ms. Shabnam Parveen, C/o Shri Mohammad Irfan, H. No. 1111/1,

Mohalla Khalapar, Nai Abadi, Muzzafarnagar (U.P.).

2. Shri Shailesh Kumar Yadav, Dy. Director, All India Institute of Medical
Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi.

3. Mrs. Uma Mohan, C/o. Rakesh Mohan, # 554, Aaykar Bhawan,

Maharshi Karvey Road, Mumbai – 400020.

4. Shri R. Swaminathan, Joint Secretary (CPV), Ministry of External

Affairs, Patiala House, New Delhi.

5. Shri R. N. Rai, Passport Officer & PIO, Passport Office, Hapur chungi,
Hapur Road, Ghaziabad – 201002.

6. Officer Incharge, NIC.

7. Press E Group, CIC.