Central Information Commission
Krishna Sarkar vs Ordnance Factory Board on 31 March, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.: - CIC/OFBKO/A/2019/121220
In the matter of:
Mrs. Krishna Sarkar
... Appellant
VS
CPIO / Works Manager,
Ordnance Factory Board,
Gun & Shell Factory,
Cossipore, Kolkata - 700002
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 24/12/2018 CPIO replied on : 11/01/2019 First appeal filed on : 17/01/2019 First Appellate Authority order : 31/01/2019 Second Appeal filed on : 01/05/2019 Date of Hearing : 31/03/2021 Date of Decision : 31/03/2021 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over VC at 24 Parganas alongwith Shri Sanway Banerjee , representative Respondent: Shri P.C Srivastava, Joint General Manager and CPIO, present over VC at Nizam Place Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information:
1. What is the marital status of Shri Chandan Sarkar as per official record.
2. If married, give the name of the wife of Shri Chandan Sarkar as per official record.1
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has denied the desired information claiming the same as third party information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that she is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was not given to her. Furthermore, vide written submissions dated 23.03.2021 she submitted that she was denied information on the ground that the matrimonial suit no. 42/2011, filed by Mr Chandan Sarkar against the appellant was decreed in favour of Mr Chandan Sarkar, dissolving the marriage on 20.04.2017 by the Court of Learned ADJ, Fastrack-5, of Barasat, North 24 Parganas, West Bengal. She alleged that the other matter was suppressed that challenging the said decree of 20.04.2017 for dissolution of marriage, solemnised on 14.12.2003 between Mr Chandan Sarkar and Mrs. Krishna Sarkar. The appellant preferred an appeal in the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, Appellate Side, vide case no. FAT 275/2017 with CAN 5106/2017 with CAN 5104/2017. On perusal of the appeal the Bench was pleased to pass an interim order, dated 26.06.2018, of injunction restraining the parties from contracting a new marriage during the pendency of the said appeal. The appeal is still pending in the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta.
She further submitted that after the interim order of injunction, dated 26.06.2018, has been passed the said marriage between Mr. Chandan Sarkar and Mrs. Krishna Sarkar, solemnised on 14.12.2003, can no more be considered as dissolved. The contract of marriage should be considered as still in force in the eyes of Law.
The appellant further relied on a decision of the coordinate bench of the Commission of dated 06.11.2020 in the matter of Rahmat Bano vs Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, where the generic details of net taxable income/gross income of husband was given.
She further submitted that in the above order the coordinate bench while relying on the judgment of the Division bench of the High Court of M.P in the matter of Smt. Sunita Jain vs Pawan Kumar Jain and others W.A No. 168/2015 and Smt. Sunita Jain vs. BSNL and others W.A. No. 170/2015 dated 15.05.2018, took reference of a remarkable persuasive precedent of the Hon'ble Hgh Court of Bombay (Nagpur bench), where, in the matter of Rajesh Rama Chandra 2 Kidile vs Maharashtra SIC and Ors, in W.P.No. 1766 of 2016 dated 22.10.2018, The Court held as under:-
"It would have been a different matter, had the information been sought by the wife of the petitioner in order to support her contention in litigation, which she filed against her husband. In a litigation, where the issue involved is of maintenance of wife, the information relating to the salary details no longer remain confined to the category of personal information concerning both husband and wife, which is available with the husband hence accessible by the wife......"
She further submitted that in the present case, according to the interim order of the High Court of Calcutta, the marriage, solemnised between her and her husband is still in force and parties to the case no. FAT 275/2017 with CAN 5106/2017 with CAN 5104/2017 have been directed not to contract any marriage during the pendency of the appeal.
The CPIO submitted that due procedure u/s 11 of the RTI Act was followed and after receiving comments from the concerned third party, an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 31.01.2019.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant is aggrieved as the desired information was not provided to her. On the contrary, the CPIO in his reply had clearly stated that since the appellant is seeking information about a third party therefore, the information cannot be disclosed. However, rather than invoking the appropriate exemption clause, the CPIO had claimed exemption u/s 11 of the RTI Act which is not a proper section to deny the desired information. However, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO as even if there appears to be a husband- wife relationship between the appellant and the third person regarding whom she is seeking the information, under the RTI Act, a wife is considered as a third party to her husband and the same applies vice-versa. Unless and until there is an involvement of larger public interest in disclosure of the information no relief can be given in such cases. In the present case also, since the appellant was unable to establish any larger public interest, no relief can be given.
It is pertinent to mention here that in the matters concerning the disputes of a husband and wife, the Commission is guided by a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Vijay Prakash vs. Union of India (W.P. (C) 3 803/2009) dated 01.07.2009 wherein the Court observed that in private disputes such as the present one between a husband and wife "...The basic protection afforded by virtue of the exemption (from disclosure) enacted under Section 8(1)(j) cannot be lifted or disturbed.."
Decision:
In view of the foregoing, the Commission upholds the reply of the CPIO that the information sought by the appellant is purely personal information of a third party and thus stands exempted u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and further no public interest was brought to the notice of the Commission to lift the exemption claimed by the respondent. Hence, no relief can be provided to the appellant.
The CPIO is advised to remain careful while handling the RTI applications and to invoke proper exemption clauses wherever required.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4