16/03/2021 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN APPEAL NO.4-

11013/297/2020-RTI-APPEAL/VOL-VI/

75/11924

AT

ANNEXURE-E AND IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/08/2022

PASSED BY APPELLATE AUTHORITY (I.E. RESPONDENT NO.2)

IN

SECOND

APPEAL

NO.CIC/UIDAI/A/2021/117596

AT

ANNEXURE-G AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING

THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AND

PARTICULARS OF AADHAR CARD OF SHRI P. DINESH RAO.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner sought for the

following reliefs:

“A. ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHIGN THE

ENDORSEMENT DATED 25/02/2021 ISSUED BY 3RD

RESPONDENT IN BEARING NO. K-11013/100/ 2020-

RTI/ VOL 25/1785-1786 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT

ANNEXURE-C SO ALSO IMPUGNED ORDERS I.E.,

IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16/03/2021 PASSED BY

RESPONDENT NO.2 IN APPEAL NO.4-11013/297/

2020-RTI-APPEAL/VOL-VI/75/11924 AT ANNEXURE-E

AND IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/08/2022 PASSED

BY APPELLATE AUTHORITY (I.E. RESPONDENT NO.2)

IN SECOND APPEAL NO.CIC/UIDAI/A/2021/117596

AT ANNEXURE-G.

- 3 -

B. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE

3RD RESPONDENT TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AND

PARTICULARS OF AADHAR CARD OF SHRI P. DINESH

RAO.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the

material on record.

The material on record discloses that pursuant

to the marriage between the petitioner and one Mr.

P.Dinesh Rao on 18.11.2005 a girl child by name-

Sudheeksha was born to them on 08.12.2006. Due to

matrimonial dispute that arose between the petitioner and

the aforesaid Sri P.Dinesh Rao, the petitioner instituted

the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. in

Criminal Miscellaneous No.312/2012 before the Principal

Judge, Family Court, Hubballi, who allowed the same vide

order dated 26.11.2013 directing the respondent-Sri

P.Dinesh Rao to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the

petitioner and Rs.5,000/- to their daughter. It is

contended that though the petitioner repeatedly sought to

- 4 -

enforce the said order against her husband, he was

absconding and was not residing at the address shown in

the cause title to the proceedings under Section 125 of the

Cr.P.C. Under these circumstances, the petitioner filed

instant application under the Right to Information Act

before the 3^rd respondent-Central Public Information

Officer seeking information of address of the P. Dinesh Rao

as found in the Adhaar Card. The said application was

rejected by the 3^rd respondent by issuing the impugned

endorsement dated 25.02.2021 inter alia stating that the

said information was private in nature as contemplated

secure information, which incapable of being furnished in

favour of 3^rd parties. Aggrieved by the impugned

endorsement Annexure-C dated 25.02.2021, the petitioner

filed an appeal before the 2^nd respondent-appellate

authority, who dismissed the same and was confirmed by

the 2^nd appellate authority-1^st respondent. Aggrieved by

the

impugned

orders

passed

by

the

respondents,

petitioner is before this Court by way of the present

petition.

- 5 -

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents

submits that under Section 33 of the Act information can

be provided to the petitioner only after hearing the

concerned Adhaar Card holder i.e., Sri P.Dinesh Rao and

without doing so, furnishing of information as sought for

by the petitioner does not arise and consequently, the 3^rd

respondent fully justified in rejecting the application of the

petitioner and petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. As stated supra, despite obtaining an order from

the Family Court directing maintenance payable in favour

of the petitioner and her daughter from the estranged

husband-P.Dinesh Rao, petitioner is not in a position to

enjoy the fruits of the said order nor enforce or implement

the same. Under these circumstances, in the light of

Section 33 of the Adhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial

and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (for

short, ‘the Act’), I deem it just and appropri