Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Chhattisgarh State information Commission (henceforth 'the Commission') by which it has directed the petitioner to supply copies of the entire DPC (Departmental Promotion Committee) proceedings for promotion from the post of Joint Director (Mining) to the post of Additional Director (Mining).

2. There is no dispute about the fact that the record of DPC proceedings contains the grade and ACR (Annual Confidential Report) of all the officers who are falling within the zone of consideration.

3. In the matter of R.K. Jain v Union of India and Another, (2013) 14 SCC 794 the Supreme Court considered the decisions of the Kerala High Court rendered in the matter of Centre of Earth Science Studies, Thiruvananthapuram v Dr. Mrs. Anson Sebestian and Anr., AIR 2010 Kerala 151 : (2010) 2 KLT 233 and that of the Delhi High Court rendered in the matter of Arvind Kejriwal v Central Public Information Officer, AIR 2010 Delhi 216 holding that once the information seeker is provided information relating to a third party, it no longer remains in the private domain. Such information seeker can then disclose in turn such