Friends,
A few days back I went through the new procedure at the Regional Passport Office Chandigah, in order to renew my passport. I just could not believe that with the introduction of TCS in the loop things are working so smoothly.
I had to ask a few times IS THIS REALLY AN INDIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICE and met the Assistant Passport Officer and complimented her!
However, at two counters one had to interact with Government employees, luckily briefly and the difference was marked!
Lt Gen Harbhajan Singh (Retd)
Passport - new procedures
The front-end operations of all Regional Passport office have been outsourced as part of the Passport Seva Kendra (PSK) project and Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) is all set to handle the front-end operations of all RPO very shortly. Union Ministry of External Affairs has already implemented the PSK project some of the passport offices in India. These centres have been set up on a public-private partnership (PPP) basis with Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) as its service provider. The project has been designed as a citizen-centric and paperless service. All one needs to do is upload a passport application on www.passportindia.gov.in and confirm an appointment online. After which the support staff from TCS will guide the applicant through the biometric process. Walk-in applicants will be greeted by a floor manager who will help the applicants upload applications through a kiosk at the PSK. "The amenities and services at the PSK are in keeping with any modern bank or airport.
The implementation of the project has reached its halfway mark and will likely to completed by March 2012, The existing passport office will be responsible for liaison with the MEA, dispatching, printing, answering RTIs, and management of the PSKs. First time applicants no longer need to go the existing passport office.
According to the available information, TCS would receive applicants, guide them and handle the process for submission of applications, conduct the verification of the completeness of the application form and the documents attached therein. TCS would be in charge of receiving applications and guiding applicants, technical support and maintenance of the premises, while sensitive areas would continue to be handled by the passport office staff. The PSK initiative would bring in the much-required concept of “one-day visit to the passport office”, as the officials would tell the applicants the same evening as to whether their passport application forms and the supporting documents were in order and whether the passport would be issued or not. This would eliminate the anxious wait by the applicants.
Under the new system, photographs need not be affixed, image of the applicant's face will be captured at the time of applying online as is done in the driving licence process. In addition, the new system will involve taking the finger print (bio-metric) of the applicant and incorporating it in the database. Only if the finger print tallies, the applicant will be able to apply for other services such as spouse entry, address change or renewal of passport.
The added feature is that every police district will have access to the passport server for downloading the personal particular form online and to send the police verification reports online. This will obviate postal delay and laborious paper work. This will also ensure speedy completion of procedures which are time-consuming at present. Even passport issuance will be modernized with digital signature.
The place for these front-end operations has been already finalized for most of locations and started functioning. The new system will put in place a first-in and first-out concept, eliminating the practice of issuing passports out-of-turn. Under the new system getting passport will not take more than 72 hours. This turnaround time is from the moment of police verification to the issuance of the passport.Procedures for applying Passports under new system (where ever the new PSK system is implemented)For filling and submitting your application online, you need to be a registered user on the Passport Seva website.
Visit: Passport Seva Portal: Consular passport and Visa Division
Showing posts with label Passport Offices. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Passport Offices. Show all posts
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
MEA attempt to reduce corruption in the Passport Offices
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
The Government has launched the Passport Seva Project at four Pilot sites in Karnataka on May 28, 2010 under the jurisdiction of Regional Passport Office, Bangalore. This will be followed by launch at three Pilot sites (Chandigarh, Ambala and Ludhiana) under the jurisdiction of Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh. Following validation of the Pilot projects, the remaining 70 Passport Seva Kendras will be established across the country in a phased manner. Under the Passport Seva Project Scheme, the time target schedule for issue of passport under normal and Tatkal category is as follows:
This information was given by Shri S.M. Krishna, Minister of External Affairs, in a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha today.
YSK:PM
Passport Seva Project
The Government has launched the Passport Seva Project at four Pilot sites in Karnataka on May 28, 2010 under the jurisdiction of Regional Passport Office, Bangalore. This will be followed by launch at three Pilot sites (Chandigarh, Ambala and Ludhiana) under the jurisdiction of Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh. Following validation of the Pilot projects, the remaining 70 Passport Seva Kendras will be established across the country in a phased manner. Under the Passport Seva Project Scheme, the time target schedule for issue of passport under normal and Tatkal category is as follows:
This information was given by Shri S.M. Krishna, Minister of External Affairs, in a written reply to a question in the Lok Sabha today.
YSK:PM
Passport Seva Project
Sunday, February 22, 2009
RTI: Token penalty of Re 1 slapped on passport office by CIC
New Delhi (PTI): In a rare decision, the CIC has slapped a token penalty of rupee one on Ghaziabad passport office for harassing an RTI applicant.
RTI applicant, Commodore Lokesh Batra, himself sought imposition of the token penalty over the Re one on the passport office after it failed to respond to his query related to facilities for the disabled at the office.
"The appellant brought to the notice of the Commission the harassment that he has had to go through to get his demand for fulfilment of an important section of the RTI Act to be implemented.
"The commission considers his point of view and, as per the his own request, awards a token compensation of Re 1 for the mental harassment that the appellant has faced," said Central Information Commissioner O P Kejariwal.
In his RTI application in July 2006, Batra had sought information on the implementation of section 4 of the RTI Act related to facilities for the disabled at the Regional Passport Office at Ghaziabad. He wanted to "know the status of the action taken...under Chapter II of the RTI Act."
When the office did not give any reply within the stipulated one-month time, Batra filed an appeal in the department and then approached the CIC in March 2007.
Token penalty of Re 1 slapped on passport office by CIC
Comments
Under the RTI Act it is mandatory to impose penalty @ Rs 250/- per day of delay. So in all cases where such penalty is NOT imposed we can logically presume that the information commissioners have taken bribes and defaulted on their mandatory duty. There are canards being spread that the RTI Act is being misused by the public. We need to counter this too. Anybody who can read and has not lost his common sense can understand that the ONLY people who can misuse the RTI Act are the information commissioners. It is ONLY they who can FAIL to impose mandatory penalties by taking bribes from the PIOs. For example, in a case where the PIO is required to be fined Rs 25000/- (and mind you in all cases that reaches the IC the upper limit of penalty would have been reached!) he/she can easily take a bribe of Rs 15000/- and FAIL to impose the penalty. So both the IC and the PIO are gainers. And who is hte loser? The public! Please spread this message to all activists. We need to expose the ICs and shame them as much as possible.
Maj PM Ravindran
An award of any penalty can have its effect visualised by the Architects of the Right to Information Act 2005 only if it affect the delinquent. Apart from the monetary drain, it should have a deterrant effect lest such offence is repeated. Intention of the Appellant seeking to limit the amount of fine to Re.1/- could be that the appellant may not be needing from the PIO any compensation for the injuries inflicted on him by the PIO but defenitely want the PIO to suffer the deterrant effect of such penalty. The Appellant did not achieve his aim by curtailing the compensation to Re.1/-. Compensation is not a penalty to be impossed on the PIO by the Commission under Section 20(1) or 19(8)(c) of the Act. It is more or less the pnalty impossed by the Commission requiring the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suferred. The Act does not say that such amount of compensation should be recovered from the PIO. This amount has to be paid by the public authority to the Appellant from the public fund. This expenditure become "a loss due tomisappropriate, fraud or neglect" This means that the amount so paid has to be realised from the person responsible for this or tobw written off by the competent financial authority. Various limits of financial powers are laid down to write off such loss also. In case of writing of loss due to fraud, neglect etc, the permissible limit is too meagre or even higher officials. This means the public authority has to approacxh the higher authorities in case the intention is to write of such compensation.One has to approach higher the authorities higher the amount to be written off. The procedure envisaged being too long I am not attempting to narrate it here. In short if the intention of the appellant was to cause a deterrant on PIO the compensation amount should have been higher enough compelling the public authority to approach higher authorities or resorting to departmental action to realise the loss from the PIO. For writing off Re.1/- the lower level head of office is fully compentent.
By seeking to limit the compensation to Re.1/- the Appellant did not achieve anything, no punishment to PIOP, or AA or anyone. The amount can be written off by a lowest official. No record of this offence in the service records of the PIO. In fact the Appellant has made a MOCKERY of the RTI Act.
Col R Kurup (Retd)
RTI applicant, Commodore Lokesh Batra, himself sought imposition of the token penalty over the Re one on the passport office after it failed to respond to his query related to facilities for the disabled at the office.
"The appellant brought to the notice of the Commission the harassment that he has had to go through to get his demand for fulfilment of an important section of the RTI Act to be implemented.
"The commission considers his point of view and, as per the his own request, awards a token compensation of Re 1 for the mental harassment that the appellant has faced," said Central Information Commissioner O P Kejariwal.
In his RTI application in July 2006, Batra had sought information on the implementation of section 4 of the RTI Act related to facilities for the disabled at the Regional Passport Office at Ghaziabad. He wanted to "know the status of the action taken...under Chapter II of the RTI Act."
When the office did not give any reply within the stipulated one-month time, Batra filed an appeal in the department and then approached the CIC in March 2007.
Token penalty of Re 1 slapped on passport office by CIC
Comments
Under the RTI Act it is mandatory to impose penalty @ Rs 250/- per day of delay. So in all cases where such penalty is NOT imposed we can logically presume that the information commissioners have taken bribes and defaulted on their mandatory duty. There are canards being spread that the RTI Act is being misused by the public. We need to counter this too. Anybody who can read and has not lost his common sense can understand that the ONLY people who can misuse the RTI Act are the information commissioners. It is ONLY they who can FAIL to impose mandatory penalties by taking bribes from the PIOs. For example, in a case where the PIO is required to be fined Rs 25000/- (and mind you in all cases that reaches the IC the upper limit of penalty would have been reached!) he/she can easily take a bribe of Rs 15000/- and FAIL to impose the penalty. So both the IC and the PIO are gainers. And who is hte loser? The public! Please spread this message to all activists. We need to expose the ICs and shame them as much as possible.
Maj PM Ravindran
An award of any penalty can have its effect visualised by the Architects of the Right to Information Act 2005 only if it affect the delinquent. Apart from the monetary drain, it should have a deterrant effect lest such offence is repeated. Intention of the Appellant seeking to limit the amount of fine to Re.1/- could be that the appellant may not be needing from the PIO any compensation for the injuries inflicted on him by the PIO but defenitely want the PIO to suffer the deterrant effect of such penalty. The Appellant did not achieve his aim by curtailing the compensation to Re.1/-. Compensation is not a penalty to be impossed on the PIO by the Commission under Section 20(1) or 19(8)(c) of the Act. It is more or less the pnalty impossed by the Commission requiring the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suferred. The Act does not say that such amount of compensation should be recovered from the PIO. This amount has to be paid by the public authority to the Appellant from the public fund. This expenditure become "a loss due tomisappropriate, fraud or neglect" This means that the amount so paid has to be realised from the person responsible for this or tobw written off by the competent financial authority. Various limits of financial powers are laid down to write off such loss also. In case of writing of loss due to fraud, neglect etc, the permissible limit is too meagre or even higher officials. This means the public authority has to approacxh the higher authorities in case the intention is to write of such compensation.One has to approach higher the authorities higher the amount to be written off. The procedure envisaged being too long I am not attempting to narrate it here. In short if the intention of the appellant was to cause a deterrant on PIO the compensation amount should have been higher enough compelling the public authority to approach higher authorities or resorting to departmental action to realise the loss from the PIO. For writing off Re.1/- the lower level head of office is fully compentent.
By seeking to limit the compensation to Re.1/- the Appellant did not achieve anything, no punishment to PIOP, or AA or anyone. The amount can be written off by a lowest official. No record of this offence in the service records of the PIO. In fact the Appellant has made a MOCKERY of the RTI Act.
Col R Kurup (Retd)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
