Y.K. Sinha, CIC:—
Information sought and background of the case:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.10.2018 seeking information regarding Passport N. H-0509536 of her husband Sh. Rahul Bhopria S/o Sh. Ramchandra Bhopria dated 14.10.2008 valid till 13.10.2018 on following 3 points:
2. The CPIO, Regional Passport office, Jaipur who furnished a reply to the Appellant vide letter dated 12.11.2018, stated as under:
3. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.12.2018. The FAA vide order dated 09.01.2019 observed that the information has been furnished and upheld the reply of PIO on point no. 1 and 2, but on point no. 3 directed the CPIO, Regional Passport Office, Jaipur to provide information/reply to the Appellant within 10 days.
4. In compliance of the FAA order dated 09.01.2019, the CPIO informed the Appellant with respect to point 3 of the RTI application that her complaints had been forwarded to Superintendent of Police, Ajmer for enquiry.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
6. In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, a video hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Both parties participated in the hearing through video conference. The Appellant explained that she has sought the above information about her husband but the Respondents have denied disclosure of the same without adequate reasons. She has further contended that she is aggrieved by the inaction of the authorities despite her complaints dated 22.02.2018 and 26.09.2018. The Respondent stated that without any direction of the Court, the passport issued to any citizen cannot be impounded and also stated that information sought by the Appellant cannot be disclosed because on gaining knowledge of the renewal and validity period of the passport, false complaints can be filed for cancellation of the passport. The Respondent reiterated the reliance placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case Union of India v. Jayachandran dated 19.02.2014, referred to by the PIO in his reply.
DECISION
7. Upon careful perusal of the facts of the case, it is noted that the Delhi High Court case of Union of India v. Jayachandran cited by the Respondent deals with information related to passport number, date of issue, subsequent renewals, the name of police station from which verification had been done, nature of documents submitted with the passport application etc. In the instant case, the Appellant-Smt. Reena already possesses the passport number and date and validity thereof, as mentioned in the documents submitted by her. The query number 3 has been addressed by the Respondent, in compliance with the FAA's order.
8. In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the considered opinion that information as to whether the concerned passport was renewed or not and date of renewal cannot be considered as personal information, nor likely to infringe on the privacy of the individual, particularly because information pertaining to passport number and period of validity of the same are already available with the Appellant. The Respondent shall furnish a reply to query no. 2 only to the extent as to whether the passport mentioned in the RTI application was renewed or not and the date of renewal. The reply should be sent to the appellant marking a copy to the Commission by way of compliance by 31.01.2021, failing which appropriate action shall be initiated as per law.
9. The appeal is disposed off with the above observations.