G. ROHINI, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 19.12.2014 whereunder the learned Single Judge allowed W.P.(C) No.1842/2012 filed by the respondent herein and set aside the order dated 01.02.2012 passed by the Central Information Commissioner (CIC) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘RTI Act’).

2. The facts in brief are as under:-

3. The appellant herein filed an application under the RTI Act with the Central Public Information Officer, Department of Justice, Government of India seeking the information relating to the details of the medical facilities availed by the individual judges and their family members of the Supreme Court in last three years including the information relating to expenses on private treatment in India or abroad. The CPIO, to whom the said application was transferred under Section 6(3) of the Act rejected the same by order dated 02.02.2011 on the ground that it is an exempted information under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. The appeal preferred by the appellant herein was dismissed by the First Appellate Authority by order dated 07.03.2011. However, the further appeal to the CIC was allowed and by order dated 03.08.2011, the CIC directed the CPIO to provide the total amount of medical expenses of individual judges reimbursed by the Supreme Court during the last three years both in India and abroad wherever applicable. There was also a direction that the CPIO shall bring to the notice of the competent authority in the Supreme Court and ensure that arrangements are made in future for maintaining the information as expected in Section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act. In pursuance thereof, by letter dated 30.08.2011, the CPIO while furnishing the actual total expenditure for the years 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, informed the appellant herein that the judge-wise information regarding actual total medical expenditure is not required to be maintained and is not maintained. Contending that the information furnished by CPIO is not in compliance with the order dated 03.08.2011, the appellant herein had again approached the CIC and thereupon by order dated 01.02.2012 the CIC reiterated its directions dated 03.08.2011.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein filed W.P.(C) No.1842/2012. By the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the order passed by CIC purportedly in exercise of power under Section 19(8)(a)(iv) of the Act is erroneous. While taking note of the fact that the information sought by the respondent/appellant herein was with regard to expenses incurred on medical facilities of judges retired as well as serving and that the said information is personal information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and that the medical bills would indicate the treatment and/or medicines required by individuals and the same would clearly be an invasion of the privacy, the learned Single Judge held that the question of issuing any directions under Section 19(8)(a)(iv) of the Act to facilitate access to such information does not arise.

5. Assailing the said order, Sh.Prashant Bhushan the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the information pertaining to expenditure of public money on a public servant is not exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel that only the information which relates to personal information which has no relation to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) and that the same is not attracted to the case on hand since the medical bills of the judges are reimbursed from the public money. Placing reliance upon the decisions in State of UP Vs. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 865, S.P.Gupta Vs. President of India & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 149 and Union of India Vs. Association for Democratic Reforms, AIR 2002 SC 2112 it