Central Information Commission Judgements

Mr. Sudhir Mahajan vs Ministry Of External Affairs, … on 19 December, 2008

Central Information Commission
Mr. Sudhir Mahajan vs Ministry Of External Affairs, … on 19 December, 2008
           Central Information Commission
                                             CIC/OK/A/2008/01036/AD
                                               Dated December 19, 2008

Name of the Appellant          :      Mr. Sudhir Mahajan,
                                      B - 24/11(DS),
                                      Ramesh Nagar,
                                      New Delhi - 110015.


Name of Public Authority       :      The C.P.I.O. RTI,
                                      Ministry of External Affairs,
                                      Regional Passport Office,
                                      Trikoot, - 3, Bhikaji Cama Place,
                                      R.k. Puram, New Delhi.
Background

1. The RTI request was filed on 23.01.08. The Appellant requested for the
passport details of his minor daughter and that of his wife.
He wanted to know in particular:

i) Whether the Passport No. F7686942 has been issued as wife of
Sudhir Mahajan or not in as much as divorce case still pending and
passport has been applied on concealing the marital status in as much
as the passport holder no F7686942 is still the wife of the Applicant
and no court has yet granted the divorce.

ii) Passport no. F0102817 has been issued on false information of
single parent with a undertaking that divorce will be obtained by
mutual consent and whereas divorce is still pending.

2. The Applicant stated that he is apprehensive that since the passport
of his minor daughter No. F0102817 has been issued based on wrong
information , there is every likelihood of passport holder no. F7686942
(his wife) taking his minor daughter outside the territory of the
country.

The PIO replied on 18.2.08 stating that the information sought is
personal information and denying information to the Appellant.
Aggrieved with the reply, the Appellant filed his First appeal
requesting for information. The First Appellate Authority upheld the
Decision of the CPIO stating that he does not find any lacuna in the
reply of the CPIO. The Appellant then preferred the second appeal
before the CIC on 30.6.08 requesting for the information. He further
stated that this information is required for legal purpose in court of
law as there is a strong chance of his wife taking his daughter outside
the country without his consent.

2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner,
scheduled the hearing for December 19, 2008.

3. Mr. V. Mahalingam, RPO & First Appellate Authority, Delhi & Jimmy
Simon represented the Public Authority.

4. The Appellant Mr. Sudhir Mahajan was present in person at the
hearing.

Decision

5. The Appellant submitted that in the renewed passport of his wife, the
marital status was shown as blank without any comment on it. The
Respondents answered that the applicant herself had filled the
application form and had not given her marital status and the Passport
office is not responsible for this since the individual is an adult and has
the freedom to fill in the application in whatever way she wanted to.
With regard to the Appellant’s complaint that the individual (his wife)
had furnished an affidavit to the MEA which was countersigned by her
own father(which as per law is not permissible) since the
countersignature is that of a blood relative) the Respondents
submitted that they are not aware that the signature is that of her
father and that the affidavit was signed and countersigned in the
presence of a District Magistrate.

6. With regard to the Appellant’s complaint against point no 1, the
Commission advises the Appellant to approach an appropriate
grievance redressal forum. The Commission directs the CPIO to
provide all information related to the passports of both the Appellant’s
minor daughter and of his wife to the Appellant on the grounds that
this is in the interest of the minor daughter who has the right to be
cared for by both the parents and also that the element of
infringement on privacy as a result of disclosure of passport details is
minimal especially when one considers the fact that such passport
details are provided to travel agents, at airlines in counters and in
support of date of birth and address in all kinds of situations. With
regard to letter dated 18.2.08 from the CPIO to the Appellant, the
PIO to inform the Appellant what action has been taken on the
Appellant’s letter after the policy section examined it. Information to
be provided within 15 days of receipt of the letter.

7. The appeal is accordingly disposed off.

(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:

(K.G.Nair)
Designated Officer
Cc:

1. Mr. Sudhir Mahajan,
B – 24/11(DS),
Ramesh Nagar,
New Delhi – 110015.

2. The C.P.I.O. RTI,
Ministry of External Affairs,
Regional Passport Office,
Trikoot, – 3, Bhikaji Cama Place,
R.k. Puram, New Delhi.

3. The Appellate Authority – RTI
Ministry of External Affairs,
Regional Passport Office,
Trikoot, – 3, Bhikaji Cama Place,
R.k. Puram, New Delhi.

4. Press E Group, CIC

5. Officer in charge NIC