केन्द्रीय सचू ना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गगं नाथ माग,ग मनु नरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई दिल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/PASOF/A/2023/655723 Shri Jeetendra Agarwal … अपीलकता/ग Appellant VERSUS/बनाम PIO, Regional Passport Office, Hyderabad …प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 03.01.2025 Date of Decision : 03.01.2025 Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 07.11.2023 PIO replied on : 16.11.2023 First Appeal filed on : 29.11.2023 First Appellate Order on : 15.12.2023 2^ndAppeal/complaint received on : 21.12.2023 Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 07.11.2023 seeking information on the following points:-

“In relation to file no HYD/30/POL/PCC/122/2021 and passport no Z4599696 please provide the information under the RTI Act

1.as per record was proper and fair police verification was done by police towards issuance of PCC and the passport Z4599696

2.is it true as per the records Srikakulam Police sent adverse report to RPO Hyderabad yet passport was issued by passport authority.

3.when was the passport Z4599696 impounded and reason for impounding and what action has been taken against the passport applicant and the police who has not done proper police verification by the Regional Passport Office Hyderabad

4.as per record was any letter addressed to concerned authorities to take action against the police for improper verification.”

The Dy. Passport Officer & CPIO, Passport Office, Hyderabad vide letter dated

16.11.2023 replied as under:-

“Point No. 1: It may be noted that CPIO is not expected to reply to interrogative or hypothetical questions.

Point No.2: The information sought by you is exempted from disclosure in terms of section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act, 2005, which inter alia says "information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information.

Point No. 3: (a)It may be noted that CPIO is not expected to reply to interrogative or hypothetical questions however, the information sought by you is exempted from disclosure in terms of section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005, which inter alia says "information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.

(b)It may be noted that CPIO is not expected to reply to interrogative or hypothetical questions and to address complaints/grievances or to follow up on them and there is a separate grievance redressal mechanism to address such cases. However, letter has been referred to the concerned authority for necessary action.

(c)The matter is not under the purview of passport Office.

Point No.4: the information sought by you is exempted from disclosure in terms of section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act, 2005, which inter alia says "information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.11.2023. The FAA vide order dated 15.12.2023 held as under:-

“2. I have examined the RTI application and the CPIO's reply dated 16.11.2023. I am satisfied with reply of the CPIO to queries 1 & 3. Regardi