Sunday 6 January 2013

Delay in issue of passport by govt,govt is liable to pay costs


It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Article 226 is both 
discretionary and equitable.  The existence of technical question and error of 
jurisdiction need not persuade the Court to exercise such jurisdiction unless 
it is satisfied that the ends of justice required it to do so.  By filing the 
present Petition, the Union of India has not only disclosed utter insensitivity 
to its duty as an authority under the Passport Act but also  aggraved the 
agony to a citizen who sought for a passport and was kept completely in the 
dark.  It suggested unreasonably  that a fresh application had to be made 
without,  disclosing the fate of the previous  application, or why such fresh 
application was necessary.  It has not questioned, in this proceeding, the 
direction by CIC to issue passports on the basis of the old applications – this  
establishes that its requirement to the applicant to move afresh was 
unjustified.  In the circumstances, even while allowing the Writ Petition to the 
extent that award of compensation of Rs.5000/- is set aside,  the  Union of WP (C) 6661/2008  Page 8 of 7
India is hereby directed to pay costs to the second respondent to the extent 
of Rs.55,000/-.  WP (C) 6661/2008  

* IN  THE  HIGH  COURT  OF  DELHI  AT  NEW  DELHI
Decided on: 16.04.2009
+  W.P. (C) 6661/2008
U.O.I                        

versus
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION &ORS                         

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT


          
%      Heard counsel for the parties. 
2. In the present petition, the Union of India claims to be aggrieved by an 
order of the Central Information Commission whereby it directed payment of 
Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the second respondent, who had applied for 
information.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.7.2007, the second 
respondent applied to the Passport Officer, designated as Information Officer 
claiming disclosure of information, relating to a passport application made by 
him in December, 2006 as well as the application of his wife.  The applicant’s 
grievance at that stage was that even though he applied for passport, for 
more than eight months, and though the Passport Office’s website indicated 
(in  March, 2007) that police report was  “OK”,  yet  in  July, 2007,  different 
information was posted asking for two specimen signatures on blank piece of 
paper.  The applicant further asked for information pertaining to the time 
limit within which passports were to be issued. 
4. The CPIO by order dated 13.8.2007 responded to the application 
(dated 27.07.2007)  stating, inter alia, that so far as the information placed 
on the website was concerned, it was updated by the National Informatics 
Centre (NIC) and the reason for delay in issue of passport had been given in 
column-1 i.e. that  it was for want of fresh passport application along with 
attested copy of all documents and passport application of his wife and son. 
5. The second respondent’s appeal was disposed by the appellate 
authority stating that even though no time limit for disposal of passport 
application existed, yet broadly a thirty day’s limit had to be adhered to.  In 
these circumstances, second respondent appealed to the CIC, which after 
considering the materials recorded as follows: 
“Decision:
6. The Commission heard both the sides and noted the 
following: 
(i) The Appellant had applied for passports for self, wife and 
son on 12 December 2006; 
(ii) He did not get the passports even after a period of seven 
months; 
(iii) In March 2007, when he opened the website of the 
Respondents, he found the information “Police report is okay, 
Passport will be sent in the first week of April 2007” pasted on 
the website; 
(iv) The Appellant waited for the time to pass and then since he 
had still not received the Passport, opened the website again in 
July 2007; 
(v) To his great surprise and dismay, he found that the website 
asked him to send two specimen signatures on a blank piece of 
paper attested by a Gazetted Officer. Subsequently, he asked 
for the details of his application through the RTI-application of 
27 July 2007; 
(vi) In the PIO’s reply of 13 August 2007, the Commission found 
that there was an explanation about the delay. The stand taken 
was that the documents were incomplete and that the 
Applicant had to apply afresh together with attested copies of 
the relevant documents; 
(vii)  There was no explanation in the PIO’s reply about the 
Passport Office asking for signatures on blank paper. 
7. Under the circumstances, the Commission fails to 
understand: 
(i) Why and when once the Applicant has been informed that his 
Passport would be sent by a particular date, he was asked to 
apply afresh. In case the Respondents detected some lacunae in 
his application, they should have informed him much earlier to 
their making the commitment that the Passport would be sent 
within a given time; 
(ii) The demand for submission of signatures on a blank piece of 
paper is something which is totally unacceptable. In fact, the 
Commission is       at a total loss to understand how a 
Government office can ask for signatures of a citizen 
approaching them for some work to sign on a blank piece of 
paper. On making  enquiries, the Appellant stated that he had 
not received the passport till date, that is, even after a year 
and a half of his filing the application. 
8. In view of the submissions of the Appellant as well as the 
Respondents, the Commission decided the following: 
(i) The Respondents will ensure that the passports are issued 
within a week of the Appellant having fulfilled of the 
requirements of the Passport application; 
(ii) The PIO and the RPO will personally conduct an inquiry into 
the functioning of the website and submit a report about the 
two different versions about the same case placed on the 
website. He will report to the Commission with the full details 
of case by 13 June 2008; 
(iii) The Commission awards a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to 
the Applicant in view of the mental agony that had has gone 
through over these one and a half years without any fault of 
his. The Respondent Department will ensure that this payment 
is made to the Appellant by 30 May 2008. The Respondent, that 
is, the PIO will fix responsibility as to the person who was 
responsible for asking for blank signatures and take necessary 
measures to recover the full amount from him.  In the first 
instance, however, this payment will be paid by the 
Department or the person on whom the responsibility is fixed 
for this major error- whichever is earlier.”
6. It is contended by the Union of India that pursuant to the orders; 
respondent/applicant carried out corrections in the pending applications and 
was issued the passports.  It is contended that the CIC committed an error in 
granting compensation since the requisite information was furnished within 
the time period. Learned counsel relied upon  Section 19 (8) (b) and 
submitted that the jurisdiction to direct compensation flows out of an 
obligation to ensure compliance with provisions of  the  Act.    It was,  
submitted that in the absence of  a finding that information disclosure was 
not in terms of the enactment or within the time limit specified, penalty or 
compensation either under Section 19 of Section 20 could  not  have been 
imposed. 
7. The Court has carefully considered the submissions.  The petitioner 
here is the Union of India. Today no dispute on the part of the following facts: 
1. Passport applications were made in December, 2006;
2. Applicants sought for passport were not intimated about the 
deficiencies till July, 2007, when information was sought for under 
the RTI Act;
3. The information posted on the website  at different points in time, 
alluded to by the applicant with reference to March, 2007 and July, 
2007 – gave conflicting information; 
4. When information was sought for, for the first time, the passport 
officials indicated that a fresh application had to be made since 
there were several defects in the applications pending since 
December, 2007.  
5. Though initially the CPIO stated that there was no time limit, the 
appellate authority stated that a time limit of thirty days had to be 
broadly adhered to.
6. Even before the CIC, there was no explanation why the petitioners 
wanted a fresh application to be furnished, eight months after the 
first one.
8. The Union of India is perhaps technically correct in contending  as it 
does that the jurisdiction to impose penalty and compensation stems out of 
Section 19 (8) (b) is on the premise that the information application has not 
been dealt with correctly and  was imposed here by CIC that the applicant 
had to suffer mental agony due to lack of or withholding of information.  
9.   However, the facts as they have unfolded in this case cannot be 
overlooked by this Court. The Jurisdiction to direct compensation under the 
Act, has to be understood as arising in relation to culpability of the 
organization’s inability to respond  suitably, in time, or otherwise, to the 
information applicant.  This is necessarily so, because penalty is imposed on 
the individual responsible for delayed response, or withholding of information 
without reasonable cause.  To that extent, the Union’s complaint  about lack 
of jurisdiction of CIC in this case, is justified.  Any other construction on the 
CIC powers under Section 19 and 20 would result in recognizing wide powers 
to grant compensation, without indicating the process and procedures 
normally available and expected, in such cases.  Further, clothing CIC with 
such jurisdiction to compensate applicants for general wrongs, without any 
statutory guidance about the limits, or method of determining such 
compensation would lead to highly anomalous and unpredictable WP (C) 6661/2008  Page 7 of 7
consequences which the Act did not intend.  A citizen applied for passport 
and had to wait for more than nine months to be told what were the 
deficiencies.  He had to seek recourse under the Right to Information Act, 
2005.  The CIC felt constrained to impose a paltry compensation amount of 
Rs.5000.  The Union, which is expected to and  is  duty bound to disclose 
information – and not merely under the RTI, being the primary authority to 
issue passports, about the fate of such application - has  now chosen to 
question such imposition of a meager amount of compensation.  
10. It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Article 226 is both 
discretionary and equitable.  The existence of technical question and error of 
jurisdiction need not persuade the Court to exercise such jurisdiction unless 
it is satisfied that the ends of justice required it to do so.  By filing the 
present Petition, the Union of India has not only disclosed utter insensitivity 
to its duty as an authority under the Passport Act but also  aggraved the 
agony to a citizen who sought for a passport and was kept completely in the 
dark.  It suggested unreasonably  that a fresh application had to be made 
without,  disclosing the fate of the previous  application, or why such fresh 
application was necessary.  It has not questioned, in this proceeding, the 
direction by CIC to issue passports on the basis of the old applications – this  
establishes that its requirement to the applicant to move afresh was 
unjustified.  In the circumstances, even while allowing the Writ Petition to the 
extent that award of compensation of Rs.5000/- is set aside,  the  Union of 
India is hereby directed to pay costs to the second respondent to the extent 
of Rs.55,000/-.  The same shall be paid within four weeks. 
Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of above order.                                
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
APRIL 16, 2009
/vd/
Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment