Dismissed

Devika Singh v. the Central Information Commission and Ors.

Delhi HC13 May 2016W.P.(C)/4318/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition filed by a wife seeking details about her husband's residential address listed in his passport. The Petitioner claimed falsity but the Court characterized the application as a fishing enquiry, noting the husband could be cross-examined in pending proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's writ petition challenging the rejection of her RTI application and seeking directions for disclosure is dismissed.

Devika Singh Vs the Central Information Commission and Ors. — RTI and Transparency | Delhi HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶4

- W.P.(C) 4318/2016

¶5

DEVIKA SINGH ..... Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Amol Chitle, Advocate with Mr. Shubham Jaiswal, Advocate.

¶7

versus

¶8

THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ORS ..... Respondents Through: None.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 13.05.2016

¶12

Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 04^th March, 2016 passed by respondent No.1-CIC whereby the information sought by the petitioner vide RTI application dated 29^th July, 2015 was rejected on the ground “exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act”.

¶13

Petitioner further seeks a direction to respondents to disclose the information sought vide RTI application dated 29^th July, 2015.

¶14

It has been averred in the petition that petitioner has sought information in respect of the details of the residential address mentioned in her husband’s Passport. It has been further averred that petitioner’s husband may have mentioned a false residential address in the application filed for obtaining a Passport.

¶15

Learned counsel for petitioner states that there is no bar in disclosing personal information in respect of third party under the provisions of RTI Act, if larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. He further states that disclosure of information sought by the petitioner would result in detection of any offence committed under the Passports Act, 1967 and therefore, involves a larger public interest.

¶16

Learned counsel for petitioner further states that CPIO, Passport Office, Dehradun, without following the procedure under Section 11 of the RTI Act, refused to provide information sought by the petitioner. He also states that the concept of public interest has not been examined by the CPIO.

¶17

The queries asked by the petitioner in her RTI application are reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶18

“1. What information has been supplied by Mr. Kunal Chauhan in his passport application form for the said passport no.Z3050038 under the heading “Present Residential Address details”.

¶19

2. What information has been supplied by the Applicant Mr. Kunal Chauhan in column 4.1 – residing since.

¶20

3. Whether the applicant Mr. Kunal Chauhan has mentioned the period of residence in the present residential address provided as being less than one year.

¶21

4. If yes to 3 then whether Column 3 of supplementary form has been filled out and any addresses have been supplied. If yes, please provide the details of the addresses provided and the duration of residence in each.

¶22

5. What information has been supplied at column 4, 5 and 6 of supplementary under permanent residential address.

¶23

6. Whether said passport was issued under tatkaal scheme?

¶24

7. If yes to 6, then please provide copy of Verification Certificate as submitted in accordance with Annexure F or copy of three documents submitted and Standard Affidavit as per Annexure I.

¶25

8. If applicable, then please provide names and particulars of the witnesses verifying Mr. Kunal Chauan‟s residence.

¶26

9. If applicable, then please provide name and particulars of the police officer who conducted the verification for Mr. Kunal Chauhan‟s passport application form.

¶27

10. Whether the applicant Mr. Kunal Chauhan has provided his spouse‟s name and child‟s name under Family Details in passport application form. What are the details provided?

¶28

11. Whether the applicant Mr. Kunal Chauhan has declared that he has been charged with criminal proceedings. It is submitted that as can be seen from Annexure D, the applicant Mr. Kunal Chauhan is the accused in criminal proceedings which continue to be pending as of date.

¶29

12. Whether Mr. Kunal Chauhan has supplied in the supplementary form the case/FIR/warrant No. as required along with written permission of the competent court.”

¶30

A perusal of the said queries reveals that the petitioner by way of her RTI application is actually indulging in a fishing and roving enquiry. The entire petition is based on a hypothesis of which the petitioner is not sure.

¶31

In any event, it seems that petitioner and her husband have filed numerous legal proceedings against each other. If the petitioner’s husband has furnished a false address in his Passport, the petitioner would have

¶32

ample opportunity to cross-examine her husband in the pending proceedings.

¶33

Consequently, this Court is of the view that the impugned order calls for no interference in the writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, present writ petition is dismissed.

¶34

MANMOHAN, J MAY 13, 2016 js

Devika Singh v. the Central Information Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devika Singh v. the Central Information Commission and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Ray Vs Union of India & Ors.

Jaidal Singh Rawat Vs Food Corporation of India & or

Mohd. Salim Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.

Devender Singh Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Media Content & Communication Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Manmohan Singh Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Abha Gupta Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

Priya Desh Gupta Vs Dy. Commisioner of Income Tax

Preeti Rana Vs Union of India & Anr.

Master Mohd Hamza Vs Mount Fort School and Ors.

Kuldeep Vats Vs State of National Capital of Delhi and Anr.

Mewa Singh Vs Comissioner of Police and Ors.

Dr (Major) Ajit Pratap Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Shiv Shanker Yadav Vs Delhi Medical Council and Ors.