THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1654 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as an Operator in the Hindustan Shipyard, in the year 1971. He was dismissed from service on 11-08-1992, and thereafter he pursued various remedies. On 29-11-2006, he requested the Public Information Officer of Hindustan Shipyard, the 3rd respondent, to furnish information, under the Right to Information Act (for short ‘the Act’), on ten aspects, in relation to Sri B. Bhasker Rao, Local Purchase Assistant and other associated officers. Through a letter dated 26-12-2006, the 3rd respondent informed the petitioner that Bhasker Rao was relieved on V.R.S., in the year 1992, and the record, which is more than 15 years old, is not traceable. It was further mentioned that the information pertains to third party, and that the same cannot be disclosed, under the Act, except with the consent of the said person. The petitioner made another application dated 07-02-2007, as regards certain other aspects. This was responded by the 3rd respondent, on 05-03-2007, and available information was furnished. Not being satisfied with that, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Central Information Commission, the 1st respondent. The appeal was rejected through order dated 20-02- 2009. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned counsel for the respondents. Section 8 of the Act makes it amply clear that the information pertaining to a third party cannot be furnished, unless such individual gives consent. The nature of the information sought for by the petitioner would only disclose the extent, to which the provisions of the Act were misused. In case the petitioner had any cause of action, right, or grounds against Sri Bhasker Rao, he could have certainly initiated proceedings before the proper forum, duly impleading him. In such an event, that person could have an opportunity to contest the matter, or would have been required by the forum, to disclose the information. More than 15 years have been elapsed, since the individual retired, and a gigantic organization like, the Shipyard, cannot be expected to maintain the records, for so long and furnish the same to anyone. The 1st respondent has taken correct view of the matter. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.02-02-2010. KO