Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Central Information Commission

Mr.Ashok Kumar Asthana vs Ministry Of Urban Development on 16 July, 2010

            CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
            Room No. 308, B-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066


                               File No.CIC/LS/A/2010/000547

Appellant                  :         Shri Ashok Kumar Asthana

Public Authority           :         CPWD

Date of Hearing            :         16.7.2010

Date of Decision           :         16.7.2010

FACTS :

The matter is called for hearing today dated 16.7.2010. The appellant was issued notice to be present in NIC office, Lucknow, but he is not present. The public authority is represented by Shri S.M. Amrit, CE, NDZ-II & Shri A.R. Singh, Executive Engineer.

2. The matter, in short, is that Shri Apurb Anand married appellant's daughter Nivedita in 1997. Accordingly, her name was entered as wife in his service record. Subsequently, Nivedita's name was deleted from the record and substituted by the name of another person. In this connection, vide RTI application dated 19.7.2009, the appellant had requested for a photocopy of the page(s) containing the family details of Shri Apurb Anand, Executive Engineer, CPWD, in his service-book etc.

3. The CPIO had refused to disclose this information u/s 8 (1) (j) of the RTI Act vide letter dated 24.8.2009. The AA had affirmed the decision of CPIO vide order dated 27.10.2009. One of the reasons for refusing this information was the objection filed by Shri Apurb Anand.

4. During the hearing, Shri K.R. Singh submits that Nivedita was married to Apurb Anand in 1997 but the couple was divorced in 1999 by the order passed by the Family Court, Kanpur City. In view of this, Nivedita becomes third party and, therefore, the requested information can not be disclosed to the appellant.

5. As noted above, the appellant is not present before the Commission to have his say in the matter. If it is true that the order of the Family Court remained unchallenged, Nivedita become a third party and the appellant is not entitled for the information. In this view of the matter, the appeal is not sustainable in law. Hence, dismissed.

Sd/-

(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.

(K.L. Das) Assistant Registrar Address of parties :-

1. Shri S.M. Amrit C.E., NDZ-II, Central Public Works Department (CPWD), Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi
2. Shri Ashok Kumar Asthana 2/174, Vishwas Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (UP)