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/2024/127414 Shri Navdeep Dhawan … अपीलकता/ग Appellant VERSUS/बनाम PIO, …प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent Passport Office Date of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date of Decision : 19.08.2025 Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

RTI application filed on : 01.08.2024 PIO replied on : 12.08.2024 First Appeal filed on : 12.08.2024 First Appellate Order on : 22.08.2024 2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 27.08.2024 Information sought and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 01.08.2024 seeking information on following points:-

“It has come to my knowledge that my wife with whom i have a marital dispute has renewed the passport of my minor son. This was done without my consent and knowledge. Below are the details of the passport in question:

Passport number: 87030305 Name: Vivaan Dhawan Date of issue: 27th Dec 2023 Place of Issue: Delhi Father name: Navdeep Dhawan Mother name: Priyanka Dhawan I need the following details of this passport:

1. Annexure C/D whichever was filed with this application

2. All the documents that were supplied for this application. 3. Consent of the father for the approval of this application.

4. Court order(if any) for this application.

5. Court case details provided with this application.

6. Police verification details and documents provided for Police verification for this application.

7. All the details of the ARN form submitted for this passport.

8. Details of all the father documents and signatures provided with to this application.”

The CPIO, Passport Office vide letter dated 12.08.2024 replied as under:-

1. “The sought information is a third party information which cannot be disclosed to you as disclosure of the same would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Please refer to section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act-2005.

2. Same as stated in point no. 1 above. 3. Same as stated in point no. 1 above. 4. Same as stated in point no. 1 above. 5. Same as stated in point no. 1 above. 6. Same as stated in point no. 1 above. 7. Same as stated in point no. 1 above. 8. Same as stated in point no. 1 above.”

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.08.2024. The FAA vide order dated 22.08.2024 upheld the reply of CPIO.

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

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present through audio conference Respondent: Mr. Gagan Gupta, Advocate- participated in the hearing The Appellant stated that the underlying issue has been resolved, and he is satisfied with the information as provided by the Appellant.

The Respondent reiterated the contents of their written submission and stated that the relevant information as available in their records has been duly provided to the Appellant.

Decision:

Upon perusal of records, it is noted that the Appellant’s queries had been appropriately answered by concerned PIO. Furthermore, the reply furnished by the PIO is self-explanatory and comprehensive. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly 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