Central Information Commission
Nimish Sunil Agarwal vs Unique Identification Authority Of ... on 27 November, 2019
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/UIDAI/A/2018/148672/02236
File no.: CIC/UIDAI/A/2018/148672
In the matter of:
Nimish Sunil Agarwal
... Appellant
VS
Assistant Director General / CPIO
Unique Authentication Authority of India
Regional Office Hyderabad, 605 - 612,
6th Floor, Swarna Jayanthi Commercial Complex,
Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500 038
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 23/04/2018 CPIO replied on : 23/05/2018 First appeal filed on : 31/05/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 27/06/2018 Second Appeal dated : 31/07/2018 Date of Hearing : 22/11/2019 Date of Decision : 22/11/2019 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC and Advocate Pradeep Kumar Kar, representative of the appellant, present in person.
Respondent: Ms Amita Bindroo, Deputy Director & PIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant has sought application and all documents available with UIDAI relating to enrolment/ issue/ amendment of Aadhar number to his minor daughter Nirvana, holder of Aadhar Number **** **** 9329 for the period from 12/01/2012 to 23/04/2018.1
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was denied u/s 8(1)(j) without following the proper procedure laid u/s 11 of the RT Act.
The CPIO while relying on an order passed by the same bench on 04.09.2019 in File No.CIC/UADAI/ A/2018/124652 submitted that an apt reply was provided to the appellant on 23.05.2018 while following the procedure envisaged u/s 11 of the RTI Act and the third party had objected to disclose the desired information to the appellant.
At this point, the representative of the appellant submitted that if Section 11 procedure of the RTI Act was followed by the CPIO, he should have provided a copy of the notice issued to the concerned third party by the CPIO alongwith a copy of the objections submitted to the appellant.
Observations:
Having heard the submissions of both the parties, the limited issue for consideration is that the appellant wants that a copy of the notice issued to the third party u/s 11 of the RTI Act and the objections given by the third party. The CPIO is directed to give such copies to the appellant as they are eminently disclosable under the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Based on the above observations, the CPIO is directed to send a copy of the notice issued to the third party u/s 11 of the RTI Act and the objections given by her, to the appellant within a period of 05 days from the date of receipt of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) 2 File no.: CIC/UIDAI/A/2018/148672 Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3