The right to information and right to privacy can be regulated in the larger public interest.

SURESH KAIT, J.

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 24.10.2016 passed by the Central Information Commission whereby the petitioner was directing to provide the complete and categorical information, issue-wise to the respondent No. 2 herein as per his RTI Application in accordance with the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 within 30 days from the date of the receipt of order with intimation to the Commission. It is further directed that if need be, Section 5(4) of the RTI Act 2005 may also be invoked in the matter.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is wholly owned by the Union of India, managed and controlled through the Department of Food and Public Distribution under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Government of India. The primary duty of the Corporation is to undertake the purchase, storage, movement transport, distribution and sale of food grains and other foodstuff. The complainant was working as Assistant manager and Ex-employee of the petitioner, sought personal information regarding some officer against whom the petitioner have issued chargesheet and finally punished for the misconduct committed by the said officer. He submits that since the information sought by the respondent No. 2 is related to some individual and that is personal information therefore that cannot be given to any one until and unless the said person proves that the information is required in the public interest.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner and Others, (2013) 1 SCC 212 whereby it is held that the details disclosed by a person in his income tax returns are "personal information" which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, unless involves a larger public interest and the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is also relief upon the case of Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited and Others vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2013) 16 SCC 82 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the right to information and right to privacy are, therefore, not absolute rights, both the rights, one of which falls under Article 19(1) (a) and the other under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, can obviously be regulated, restricted and curtailed in the larger public interest. Absolute or uncontrolled individual rights do not and cannot exist in any modern State. Citizens' right to get information is statutorily recognized by the RTI Act, but at the same time limitations are also provided in the Act itself, which is discernible from the Preamble and others provisions of the Act. First of all, the scope and ambit of the expression "public authority" has been restricted by a statutory definition under Section 2(h) limiting it to the categories mentioned therein which exhaust itself, unless the context otherwise requires. Clause (j) of sub-section A(i) of Section 8 which is 8(1)(j) described that there shall be no obligation to give information any citizen which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.

5. Admittedly, in the present case, respondent No. 2 was working as Assist Manager in Food Corporation of India and retired from the service during 2006. The respondent has been voicing against the rampant corruption prevailing in Food Corporation o