Central Information Commission
CIC/AD/A/2009/001311
Dated 21st October, 2009
Name of the Applicant : MR. VIJAI KUMAR SINGH
Name of the Public Authority : DEPTT. OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
Background
1. The Applicant filed his RTI application on 22.05.09 with the CPIO / DDG,
Lucknow requesting for all the documents provided by his wife Mrs. Aradhana
Singh for obtaining the Airtel prepaid Mobile Number 9936341581. The CPIO
replied 30.06.09 providing information against points no. 1 & 2 and 4 and
denying information against points no.3 and 5 under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI
Act, 2005 as personal information. Not satisfied with the reply, the Appellant
filed his First Appeal before the Appellate Authority on 13.07.09 stating that
Mrs. Aradhana Singh is his legally wedded wife and as per law of the land
there is nothing personal between a wife and husband till they are separated
by a decree of divorce. According to the Applicant, in the present case, even
no divorce proceedings have been initiated in any Court.
2. The Bench of Mrs. Annapurna Dixit, Information Commissioner scheduled the
hearing for 21st October, 2009.
3. Mr. Manish Kumar Bansal, Dir (S-1) and Mr.S.K. Srivastwa, DO(S)
represented the Public Authority.
4. The Applicant was not present during the hearing.
Decision
5. The Commission observed that the information was not provided to the
Appellant as third party information under Section 11(1) of the RTI Act, 2005
and that the Appellate Authority denied the information under Section 8(1)(j)
of the RTI Act, 2005 while stating as follows:
“As per the appeal application, the information has been sought by
the applicant for the purpose of defending a court case for
maintenance under Cr. PC and therefore it may not be appropriate to
treat husband and wife as constituting a family/unit, because the
interests of the two individuals seems to be different in the case.
Hence, copy of the identity/address proof is considered as personal
information of Mrs. Aradhana Singh. Besides, as proposed by the
appellant, matching of signatures in the identity/address proof and in
the photocopies of petition and affidavit submitted by the appellant
turned out to be negative. Thus, the information sought at points 3
and 5 has to be treated as third party information for which opinion /
consent of the third party could not be obtained as the notices have
been returned undelivered at the know addresses. Presently, the
mobile number is not working in the name of Mrs. Aradhana Singh. In
view of the above, the photocopy of the identity/address proof can not
be provided to the appellant.”
6. After careful consideration of the submissions given by both sides, and after
taking note of the Applicant’s prayer to the Commission that he only requires
proof of residence, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide a photo copy
of the Driving License (which is already in the public domain) giving the
address of the Appellant’s wife, to the Appellant, by 5 November, 2009 .
(Annapurna Dixit)
Information Commissioner
Authenticated true copy:
(G. Subramanian)
Assistant Registrar
Cc:
1. Mr. Vijai Kumar Singh,
Asstt. Manager, (IT)
Dulhasti Power Station
NHPC Ltd., Kishtwar,
Jammu & Kashmir – 182 206.
2. The PIO
Department of Telecommunications
Director (Security-I) Sanchar Bhawan
20, Ashoka Road
New Delhi.
3. The Appellate Authority
Department of Telecommunications
DDG (Security) Sanchar Bhawan
20, Ashoka Road
New Delhi.
4. Officer in charge, NIC
5. Press E Group, CIC