Central Information Commission
Naveen vs Unique Identification Authority Of ... on 9 September, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/UIDAI/A/2023/644628
Shri Naveen ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Unique Identification Authority of ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
India(UIDAI)
Date of Hearing : 06.09.2024
Date of Decision : 06.09.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.08.2023
PIO replied on : 23.08.2023
First Appeal filed on : 24.08.2023
First Appellate Order on : 12.09.2023
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 13.09.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.08.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
"My wife Vijayalakshmi R Haveri held an Aadhar card registered with the unique identification authority of India. Aadhar number-256325565435. Due to unfortunate events have lost all copies, to process the concerned documents at the Municipal Corporation office. I need a copy of my wife's Aadhar card. so, I kindly request through this RTI application to provide a photocopy of my wife's Aadhar card, bearing Aadhar number - 256325565435. kindly provide the requested photocopy at the earliest within 3 days and do needful."
The CPIO, Unique Identification Authority of India(UIDAI), Bengaluru vide letter dated 23.08.2023 replied as under:-
➤"Aadhaar identity information and authentication records are confidential in nature and cannot ordinarily be shared as per Section 28 (2) of the Aadhaar Act, 2016. ➤ Further, the information requested by the applicant pertains to Third party. Third party details cannot be shared under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.08.2023. The FAA vide order dated 12.09.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.Page 1 of 2
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: None Respondent: Shri Pawan Kumar Pahwa - Director/CPIO was heard through audio conference Respondent alone attended present for hearing submitted that the information sought by the Appellant related to personal information of another individual, viz. his wife, who is a third party. Hence, disclosure of the said information was denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
In the light of the aforementioned facts, it is noted that the Respondent's denial of information invoking Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act is legally appropriate and hence it is upheld in this case. Information sought relates to third party and is personal in nature and no larger public interest has been demonstrated by the Appellant for obtaining the information.
Since appropriate response has been provided by the respondent, hence no further intervention is warranted in this case.
The appeal is disposed off on the above terms.
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 2 of 2 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)