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/2024/128174.

Shri. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN. … अपीलकताग/Appellant VERSUS/बनाम PIO, …प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent Passport Office.

Date of Hearing : 02.07.2025 Date of Decision : 02.07.2025 Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 21.06.2024 PIO replied on : 23.07.2024 First Appeal filed on : 24.07.2024 First Appellate Order on : 19.08.2024 2^ndAppeal/complaint received on : 04.09.2024 Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 21.06.2024 seeking information on following points:-

“1. I request a certified copy, with duly seal and signed on each page, of the passport (A0399886) application form as it was submitted at the passport office as per the documents maintained in your archives.

2. I request certified copies of the documents that were submitted along with the passport (A0399886) application form at the time of submission to your office as per the documents maintained in your archives.

3. I request certified copies of any additional documents that were associated with the passport (A0399886) application form at the time of submission to your office as per the documents maintained in your archives.

4. I request a certified copy of the handwritten passport (A0399886), including the information on the first and last pages, as well as the address information as maintained in your archives.”

The CPIO, vide letter dated 23.07.2024 replied as under:-

“The Personal information of a passport holder cannot be disclosed to third party U/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act 2005. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union of India Vs. R.Jayachandran in W.P(C)

3406/2012 has ordered that passport details of any individual/documents submitted with Passport application form and information connected therewith, cannot be disclosed to a third party under the RTI Act.

This is for information.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.07.2024. The FAA, vide order dated 19.08.2024 upheld the reply of the CPIO.

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

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present Respondent: Shri P. Roychanduri, Advocate The Submissions of the Appellant were heard.

The Submissions of the Respondent were heard.

Decision:

Upon the perusal of the case records & submissions, the Commission observes that an appropriate reply has been provided by the CPIO. No further action lies.

The Appeal stands 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