2026 Supreme(Online)(CIC) 5643
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Som Parkash – Appellant
Versus
UT of Chandigarh – Respondent
CIC/UTOCH/A/2024/643343
##PAGE1##
के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग१, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067
ि(cid:554)तीय अपील संূा / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOEAF/A/2024/134156
Ravi Kumar ….अपीलकता१/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, MEA- CPV Division … ঋितवादीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 28.04.2026
Date of Decision : 30.04.2026
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 05.08.2024 FA : 01.09.2024 SA : 19.10.2024
CPIO : 13.08.2024 FAO : 02.09.2024 Hearing : 28.04.2026
Date of Decision: 30.04.2026
CORAM
Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
O R D E R
1. The Appellant filed an online RTI application dated 05.08.2024 before the PIO,
MEA- CPV Division, seeking the following information:
“Kindly provide the following information under the RTI Act:
1. What is the date of marriage/s and name of Husband/s mentioned in the Declaration
Format dated 09.01.2023 in Passport Renewal Application submitted by Mrs. Sheena
Bansal (Passport No. W9655050 issued date 13.01.2023) D/o Sri Hari Om Bansal R/o
D6/06, Platinum City, HMT Main Road, Yeshwantpur, Bangalore, Karnataka -
5600227
2. Kindly provide a copy of the Declaration made by Mrs. Sheena Bansal in her said
Passport Renewal Application. . ” [reproduced verbatim]
Second Appeal No. CIC/MOEAF/A/2024/134156 Page 1 of 3
1 / 4
##PAGE2##2. The PIO, MEA, RPO, Patna vide reply dated 13.08.2024 denied disclosure of
the information, in terms of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
3. Dissatisfied on denial of information, he filed an online First Appeal dated
01.09.2024, which was disposed of vide the FAA’s order dated 02.09.2024 upholding
the PIO’s reply.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA’s order, the Appellant filed the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in course of Hearing:
5. Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Absent.
Respondent: Mr. Gagan Gupta-Advocate was present.
6. The CPIO, RPO, Patna sent a written submission stating as under:
“1. An RTI application was received from Sh. Ravi Kumar through RTI portal
seeking information about a passport holder Mrs. Sheena Bansal. Since the
information sought by the applicant was relating to a third party, the
information was denied.
2. An appeal was file vide MEAPD/A/E/24/00504 dated 02/09/2024 which was
replied also vide Appeal/14/2024 dated 02/09/2024.
3. Against the Reply of CPIO and the First Appellate Authority, the applicant
has filed a case CWJC No. 7598/2025 Ravi Kumar vs The UOI and others
before the Hon'ble High Court Patna. The matter is subjudice at present.
4. Now the applicant has filed an appeal before the Honorable CIC.
5. In view of the foregoing, it is stated that the matter is subjudice before the
Honorable High Court, Patna. Last date of hearing was 07/05/2025.”
7. The Respondent- PIO, Passport Office, Patna’s Advocate placed reliance on another
written submission dated 24.04.2026 sent by the PIO, RPO, Patna stating as under:
“(4) It is pertinent to mention here that Shri Ravi Kumar being aggrieved with
the decision of RPO, Patna had filed a Writ Petition bearing CWJC No.
7598/2025 on 18.04.2025 before Hon'ble Patna High Court which is pending
for adjudication. Surprisingly, he has also impleaded Central Information
Commission, New Delhi as one of the Respondents in the said Writ Petition for
the reasons best known to him.
(5) Further, Shri Ravi Kumar (Appellant herein) after filing the above-
mentioned Writ Petition, has also preferred the present Second Appeal
Second Appeal No. CIC/MOEAF/A/2024/134156 Page 2 of 3
2 / 4
##PAGE3##challenging the Order dated 02.09.2024 passed by the First Appellate Authority,
RPO, Patna before the Ld. Commission on 19.10.2024.
(6) As far as the merits of the present second appeal is concerned, it is submitted that
the issue involved is no longer res integra and stands conclusively settled by various
judgments of the Hon'ble High Court, wherein it has been categorically held that the
information contained in passport records and passport application forms of third
parties is exe