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/
No comments:
Post a Comment