The court emphasized the protection of personal information under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and the importance of disclosing material facts when seeking information under the Act.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral). - This hearing has been done by video conferencing.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 17th July, 2020, passed by Central Information Commission (hereinafter, "CIC") by which, the second appeal filed by the Petitioner bearing no. CIC/ PRSEC/A/2018/168355-BJ, against the response of the Presidential Secretariat dated 24th August 2018, to his RTI application, has been decided in the following terms:

"DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the judgment dated 23.09.2019 of Hon'ble High Court in the matter of Shri Har Kishan Vs. President's Secretariat as also the allegations levelled by the Appellant regarding illegal appointments in the Respondent Public Authority, the Commission directs the FAA to exercise due diligence in responding to the issues raised by the Appellant on points 04 and 05 of the RTI application and furnish information in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order depending upon the condition for containment of the Corona Virus Pandemic in the Country or through email to the Appellant. The Appeal stands disposed accordingly. "

3. The brief background of this petition is that the Petitioner sought information on 6th August, 2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter, "RTI Act"), in respect of certain appointments made for Multi-Tasking Staff at the Presidential Estate, Rashtrapati Bhawan. The following was the information which was sought by the Petitioner, as per the said RTI application:

"1. Kindly provide copy of Notification Circular No.A-35011/7/16-Admn.

2. Kindly provide total no of candidates who filled the online application form of MTS (Multi Tasking Staff) examination, Notification Circular No.A-3501 1/7/16-Admn ,and also provide total no of candidates who appeared in this examination.

3. Kindly Provide all the name and address of Examination Centers in all over the India where respective MTS examination was held.

4. Kindly Provide the information regarding total no candidates as per every center separately who appeared in this examination.

5. Kindly provide complete name and address of examination centers of all the candidates who have been selected for appointment to the post of Multi Tasking Staff, Notification Circular No.A-35011/7/16-Admn.

6. Kindly provide complete residential address and their father's name of all selected candidates who have been appointed to the post of Multi Tasking Staff, Notification Circular No.A-35011/7/16-Admn."

4. The same was responded to by the Presidential Secretariat, vide letter dated 24th August 2018, in which the information qua item nos. 1 to 3 was provided. The response is set out herein below:

"1. Enclosed.

2. Total number of candidates who filled the online application form was 18416 and total number of candidates who appeared in this examination was 11257.

3. List enclosed.

4-5. No such information is available.

6. It is a personal information and can't be provided u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. The disclosure of it has not relationship to any public activity or interest and it would cause unwarranted Invasion of the privacy of the individual. "

5. The Petitioner challenged the said response under the RTI Act by way of an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, on 5th September 2018, the response to which is not on record. Thereafter, a second appeal was preferred by the Petitioner before the CIC, which was disposed of by the CIC vide the impugned decision dated 17th July 2020, as extracted above.

6. The contention of Mr. Milind, ld. counsel appearing for the Petitioner, is that while the CIC has directed the Respondent to provide the information under item nos. 4 & 5 of his application, insofar as the rejection of information under item no. 6 is concerned, no reasons have been given for rejection of the same by the CIC, in the