Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Anurag Mittal vs Passport Office on 1 April, 2024

Author: Heeralal Samariya

Bench: Heeralal Samariya

                                  के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
                        Central Information Commission
                              बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
                        Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/PASOF/A/2023/610640

Shri Anurag Mittal                                           ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                  VERSUS/बनाम

PIO,Regional Passport Office, New Delhi                  ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing                        :   15.03.2024
Date of Decision                       :   27.03.2024
Chief Information Commissioner         :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :         13.09.2022
PIO replied on                    :         14.10.2022
First Appeal filed on             :         15.11.2022
First Appellate Order on          :         28.11.2022
2 Appeal/complaint received on
 nd                               :         Nil

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.09.2022 seeking information on following points:-

"Refer point no 3 in the email dated 18th July 2022 page no 4in attached file advising to contact PSP Passport division in regard to getting a certified copy of passport renewal application of my wife Mrs.Shaily Mishra Mittal (passport name - Shaily Mishra) In follow up to above and refer enclosed document, kindly provide a certified copy of each page of passport renewal application filed along with documents submitted for passport renewal by my wife Mrs.Shaily Mishra Mittal (passport name Shaily Mishra) Refer point no 3 in the email dated 18th july 2022 page 4,5,6 of attached file advising to contact PSP Passport division in regard to getting a certified copy of passport renewal application of my wife Mrs. Shaily Mishra mittal (passport name - Shaily Mishra) In follow up to above and refer enclosed document, kindly provide a certified copy of each page of passport renewal application filed along with documents submitted for passport renewal by my wife Mrs.Shaily Mishra mittal (passport name Shaily Mishra)."

The CPIO and DPO, MEA - Consular, Passport & Visa Division (CPV) vide letter dated 14.10.2022 replied as under:-

".......The sought information/copies of the current application form can not be shared with you as it is third partyinformation/documents and it is barred under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005."

Dissatisfied with theresponse received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.11.2022. The FAA vide order dated 28.11.2022 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 Respondent: Shri Gagan Gupta, Advocate The Appellant stated that the information sought was not exempted from disclosure as per Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 as he was seeking details regarding his legally wedded wife who cannot be considered as a third party as their marriage is presently valid. In support of his contentions he relied on the earlier decisions of the Commission inter alia in Soma Pandey vs M/o External Affairs CIC/MOEAF/A/2018/158969 dated 10.06.2020 and Asmita Sachin Waman vs Passport Office CIC/PASOF/A/2018/155140 dated 15.05.2020. He also referred to the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/o External Affairs vs Asmita Sachin Waman W P (C) 3735/2020 decided on 21.11.2022 but stated that the decision therein will not be applicable to his case as the factual matrix of the instant matter cannot be equated with the matter under consideration before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. He argued that in the present matter he was not seeking the passport number of his wife as he is already having access to the same. Instead, he wants to know the marital status indicated by his wife in her passport renewal application as it is his apprehension that false information regarding her marital status has been indicated. Furthermore, in Asmita Sachin Waman, the information seeker required the information to contest a matrimonial dispute in Nagpur High Court whereas in his matter no matrimonial dispute is pending before any court. He also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Smt Sunita Jain and Ors WA No 168/2015 and Smt Sunita Jain vs Pawan Kumar Jain and Others WA No 170/2015 wherein disclosure of remuneration of husband was allowed to the wife. He argued that larger public interest was involved in the matter as being a government officer directly linked to performance of public service, his work was derailed and adversely impacted on account of false matrimonial litigations filed against him. In order to further substantiate his argument regarding larger public interest he added that his wife had invoked state platforms such as Passport Division, India Embassy in Saudi Arabia; Crimes against Women Cell, East Delhi;

Crimes against Women Cell, Noida and prepared fraud travel documents and false information about her marital status.

Shri Gagan Gupta stated that the Appellant was seeking personal information of a third party exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005. He argued that the decisions of the Commission most pertinent to the present matter and primarily relied upon by the Appellant in Soma Pandey vs M/o External Affairs CIC/MOEAF/A/2018/158969 dated 10.06.2020 and Asmita Sachin Waman vs Passport Office CIC/PASOF/A/2018/155140 dated 15.05.2020 have been struck down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

Decision Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided as the Appellant is seeking personal information of a third party contained in her passport, disclosure of which is exempted u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.

The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Union of India v. R. Jayachandran WP (C) 3406/2012 dated 19.02.2014 is applicable to facts of the case. In the said decision, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held that passport details, copies of birth certificate and copies of records of educational qualification are personal information, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion to the privacy of individuals unless there was an overbearing public interest in favour of disclosure. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/o External Affairs vs Asmita Sachin Waman, WP (C) 3735/ 2020 decided on 21.111.2022. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in this matter.

The instant Second Appeal stands disposed off as such.

Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3