Even to write RTI application requires a good effort and that effort meets a stonewall18 Apr, 2014
Ref: Details about passport issued to her husband denied as third party personal information – Appellant claimed although he is known as Lalit Kadian, he had got a passport issued in the name of Milan Hooda – CIC: disclosure warranted in larger public interest
Comment: A person 'X' has been collecting/fabricating evidence and pretending to be the son of 'Y' where 'Y' had no child born to him nor did he adopt any. 'Y' is the brother of 'Z' who lived with their father 'F'. After the death of 'Y' and and immediately after the death of 'F'; 'X' filed a suit for the partition of the Properties in the alleged name of 'F'. 'X' has also produced among other false evidences a copy of a minor's passport of Sep 1990 of 10 years term when he was less than 15 years of age.
This Passport shows the PRESENT and Permanent Address as that of the suit property where he didn't even stay for a single day. The Local Commissioner appointed at the behest of 'Z' investigated and found that the unauthorised 'Kothari' type room claimed by him was not in the possession of the Plaintiff 'X' Local Police called by the plaintiff' X' after giving due "consideration' came and after detailed investigation dismissed the Plaintiff 'X' complaint of possession of that said room.
Three months after the issue of the minor's Passport in Sep 12990, he has shown his Permanent address as 54 xxxxx New Delhi in the CGHS Card of the wife of late' Y' CGHS have declared this CGHS CARD AS 'FAKE'. In the High Court he has declined to undergo a DNA test with 'Z' He has also declared in the High Court during cross examination that he has no birth certificate either from the MCD or the Hospital of his birth wherever that might have been. CGHS have stated that they have no birth certificate of 'X' and the parent Office of 'Y' who served in a central Govt Office have stated that they cannot confirm if any son was born to or adopted by 'Y' and further that if we wanted any birth certificate we should approach the MCD or the High Court for the Adoption deed.
It has become incumbent on 'Z' to prove that the Present ant PERMANENT address given in the Passport issued on 25 Sep 1990 is fake. He got another passport issued on 3 Jan 2000 where the address Present and Permanent was 54 xxxxx New Delhi. He travelled so extensively abroad that his Passport got filled up/damaged that he asked for another Passport on 16 April 2003 and a new Passport was issued to him on 14 Aug 2003. When 'Z' confronted with the false and conflicting evidences in the Passport approached the PIO MEA (Passports) and an appeal to the CPIO MEA
(Passports) to confirm the state of his Present and Permanent address; both the PIO/FAA rejected the requests to confirm that the addresses mentioned in Passports of Jan 2000 and that of August 2003 were indeed 54 xxxx New Delhi and that the profession shown therein is Business. This rudimentary information available in the Public Domain in documents like the Voters Card,
Ration Card etc was denied on the plea as information falling in the" THIRD PARTY information".
The PIOs and the FAA of the MEA (Passport) should and must apply their mind on the objections that might have been raised by the Third Party and must make a liberal/ helpful interpretation of the " Third Party" information clause. Very Senior citizens, defence Forces' Veterans who might even be wounded and disabled find it difficult to fight the bureaucratic hard minded negative mind set of the bureaucracy. Even to write and send such an application requires a good effort and that effort meets a stonewall. The purpose of the RTI Act would seem to have been thoroughly and effectively sabotaged.
Name: Anand Gupta
Email id: firstname.lastname@example.org