The main legal point established in the judgment is that information regarding action taken pursuant to complaints cannot be denied under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, if it pertains to public interest and activity.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 05.04.2016 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC), whereby the petitioner’s second appeal preferred under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter ‘the Act’) against the order dated 13.03.2014 passed by the First Appellate Authority (hereafter ‘FAA’), was rejected. By the said order dated 13.03.2014, the FAA had in turn rejected the petitioner’s appeal against denial of information by the CPIO.

2. The petitioner and several other persons including PFC Officers Association had filed complaints against Sh Satnam Singh, who was then Chairman-cum-Managing Director of M/s Power Finance Corporation Ltd (hereafter ‘PFC’). The petitioner sought certain information relating to the manner in which the complaints were dealt with and action taken on the complaints made. His request was denied on the ground that disclosure of such information was exempted by virtue of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The petitioner being aggrieved by the non-disclosure of the information has filed the present petition. Although, the petitioner has also sought information regarding notings in the file etc., the petitioner has restricted his request only for the information regarding the action taken on the complaints. Thus, the limited controversy involved in the present petition is whether the information regarding action taken pursuant to complaints can be denied to the complainant under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts necessary to address the present controversy are as under:-

2.1 The PFC Officers Association had filed a complaint dated 03.09.2010 seeking a probe regarding the allegations of irregularities and dubious conduct against the then Chairman-Cum-Managing Director (hereafter ‘CMD’) of PFC, which was stated to have been forwarded to respondent no.2. One of the principal allegations made against the then CMD of PFC was that he had been running a private limited company, M/s Legendry Legal & Management Services Private Limited, from the residential accommodation leased by PFC. It was alleged that this was impermissible. In addition, it was also alleged that PFC had suffered a loss of about Rs. 27 crores with regard to settlement of disputes with one of its borrowers which was at the instance of the then CMD. Further, there was also an allegation of sexual harassment against the CMD.

2.2 The petitioner filed an application dated 11.11.2013 seeking information regarding the complaints made and in reference to various letters referred to in the application. Essentially, the petitioner requested for records, files, notings and action taken report in respect of the complaints against the then CMD as referred to above.

2.3 The CPIO of respondent no.2 responded to the aforesaid request by stating that all complaints (except complaint dated 10.01.2013 which had not been received in the office) were placed before the Group of Officers constituted vide OM No. 15(1)/2010-DPE(GM) dated 11.03.2010 to look into the complaints against Chief Executives and Functional Directors of Public Sector Enterprises, in different meetings and were disposed of . The CPIO declined to provide any further information by referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. CIC : 2013 (1) SCC 212 and claiming that the information sought was in nature of “personal information” and thus, exempt from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act.

2.4 Aggrieved by the denial of information, the petitioner preferred a first appeal under Section 19 of the Act before the FAA, which was also rejected by an order dated 17.02.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act before the CIC. The said appeal was also rejected by the impugned order and this has led the petitioner to file the present petition.

4. In its r