ORDER
Brief Facts:
1. Shri Om Prakash Pokhriyal, Mayur Vihar, Delhi applied to PIO, Ministry of Civil Aviation on 19.10.2005 under Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005 for supply of attested/certified documents relating to the recruitment procedure of Indian Airlines and also those of service and Recruitment Rules of the organization In particular, he desired to know the provisions of law (Section and Act) under which Smt. Manju Pokhriyal former Airhostess, was re-appointed as Traffic Assistant on compassionate grounds after a gap of almost 14 years In his application he also raised several procedural points and sought information personal to Smt. Manju Pokhriyal such as application for re- employment, her academic certificates, her submissions to public authority while seeking re-employment etc. The Indian Airlines sent a reply to the Requester on 30.11.2005 giving the sequence of events leading to her re-employment Not satisfied with the reply, the Requester again applied to CPIO, Ministry of Civil Aviation on 12.12.2005 seeking point-wise information and documents on 12 points under the RTI Act The CPIO, Indian Airlines, supplied him additional information sought by the Requester on 23.1.2006 in a subsequent confidential letter dated 30.1.2006. The Requester levied unsubstantiated charges against the officers of the Ministry and the Indian Airlines and asked for more information and leading questions about Smt. Manju Pokhriyal. His motive, however, became clear to the Indian Airlines that he wanted all this information to settle scores with his estranged daughter-in-law and the matter was before the Delhi High Court. Pushed to the limit, the Indian Airlines vide their letter dated 22.2.2006 declined stating they are under no obligation to provide any further information in connection with the pending litigation as there is no direction from the Hon’ble High Court. The first Appellate Authority in her Order dated 20.3.2006 concurred with the CPIO’s decision. On 28.3.2006 the petitioner filed an appeal with the CIC against the decision of the Public Authority.
2. The matter was heard by a bench comprising Dr. O.P. Kejariwal and Dr. M.M. Ansari, Information Commissioners on 6th June, 2006. Shri H.S. Grover, General Manager, Corporate Affairs and Shri R.C Chopra, DGM (Personnel) represented Indian Airlines and the Appellant Shri O.P. Pokhriyal appeared in person accompanied by his son, that is, the husband of Smt Manju Pokhriyal.
Decision:
3. The Commission heard at length the steps taken by the public authority in supplying as much information as was possible to the Appellant On examination of the papers on record and hearing the plea of the Appellant, the Commission was of the view that the public authority had been generous in providing the appellant the information available in their records including some personal information relating to a third party.
4. The Commission was of the opinion that the respondents are at liberty not to provide personal information keeping in view the fact that some of the information although not confidential pertains to private affairs of the third party and notice to third party is required to be given in such matters under Section 11(1) read with Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. Moreover the information is intended to be used in a matrimonial dispute between the parties for which Central Information Commission is hardly the appropriate forum. The parties can get the information through the good offices of the High Court where the case is being contested.
5. The Commission accordingly dismissed the appeal.