केन्द्रीय सचू ना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गगं नाथ माग,ग मनु नरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई दिल्ली, New Delhi – 110067 नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/PASOF/A/2023/148559 Shri Ankit … अपीलकता/ग Appellant VERSUS/बनाम PIO, Passport Office …प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent Date of Hearing : 07.01.2025 Date of Decision : 07.01.2025 Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 21.10.2023 PIO replied on : 02.11.2023 First Appeal filed on : 23.11.2023 First Appellate Order on : 30.11.2023 2^ndAppeal/complaint received on : 20.12.2023 Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:-

“Attested copies of all documents including Date of Birth Certificate of Kriti Madan submitted with application at the time of issuance of her passport no: M9849174 issued on 09/06/2015.”

The Deputy Passport Officer- cum- CPIO, Regional Passport office, Chandigarh vide letter dated 02.11.2023 replied as under:-

“……….it is to inform you that the information sought for is the personal information belongs to a third party and its disclosure does not relate to any public activity or interest and also would cause unwarranted invasion in the privacy of the individual and therefore required information/record cannot be supplied & hence denied under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005 and as per judgments of Hon'ble Delhi High court in W.P. (C) No. 3406/2012 dated 19^th February 2014.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.11.2023. The FAA vide order dated 30.11.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Gagan Gupta was present during hearing.

Respondent stated that information sought by the Appellant was denied, since it related to personal information of an individual, disclosure whereof would lead to infringement of privacy of the individual without serving any larger public interest.

Hence, the information was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

Decision:

In the light of the aforementioned facts, it is noted that the Respondent’s reply is legally appropriate and hence it is upheld since information sought relates to third party and is personal in nature and no larger public interest has been demonstrated by the Appellant for obtaining the information. Since the reply sent by the Respondent is appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act and the Appellant has chosen not to contest the case, no further adjudication is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.

The appeal is thus disposed off.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया

Chief Information Commissioner (मख्ु य सचू ना आयक्तु )

Authenticated true copy अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत ( )

S. K. Chitkara (एस के नचटकारा)

. .

Dy. Registrar (उप - पंजीयक)

011-26186535 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil