The main legal point established in the judgment is that personal information sought under the Right to Information Act must have a relationship to a public activity or interest and its disclosure should not cause unwarranted invasion of privacy.

JUDGMENT :

D.N. PATEL, J.

Proceedings have been conducted through video conferencing.

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 7976/2020 dated 12.01.2021 as modified vide order dated 29.01.2021 (Annexure P-1 collectively to the memo of this appeal), the Appellant has filed the present Appeal. The impugned orders are assailed by the Appellant (Original Petitioner) on the ground that the Appellant was entitled to be provided with the information sought for under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) seeking the details of the Residential Address and Father’s Name of all the selected candidates, who were appointed to the post of Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) by Respondent No. 1.

Factual matrix

2. The Appellant (Original Petitioner) preferred an application dated 06.08.2018 under the Act in respect of certain appointments of MTS at the Presidential Estate, Rashtrapati Bhawan, New Delhi and requested for information on six points. Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Respondent No. 1 responded to the said application vide its reply dated 24.08.2018 and provided information with respect to Queries No. 1, 2 and 3. With respect to Queries No. 4 and 5, it was intimated to the Petitioner that no such information was available and qua Query No. 6, the stand was that the information sought was a personal information and could not be provided by virtue of the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act.

3. Dissatisfied with the reply, the Appellant filed a First Appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act on 05.09.2018 before the Appellate Authority under the Act. Receiving no response, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act before the Central Information Commission (CIC)/Respondent No. 2 herein, received at the office of the CIC on 21.11.2018 alleging denial of information on points 4, 5 and 6.

4. The Second Appeal was partly allowed and the CIC directed the First Appellate Authority to provide information to the Appellant regarding points No. 4 and 5 of the RTI Application, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order. The Appellant was, however, denied information against point No. 6 i.e. the details of the Father’s Name and addresses of all the selected candidates in the selection relating to the Multi-Tasking Staff.

5. Challenging the aforesaid order of the CIC dated 17.07.2020 (Annexure P-1 to the memo of this Appeal), writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 7976/2020 was preferred by the Appellant. The order of the Central Information Commission dated 17.07.2020, reads as under:-

“FACTS:-

The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 06 points regarding the copy of Notification Circular No. A-35011/7/16-Admn.; total no of candidates who filled the online application form of MTS (Multi-Tasking Staff) examination. Notification Circular No. A-35011/7/16-Admn., and the total no. of candidates who appeared in this examination; all the name and address of Examination Centers in all over India where respective MTS examination was held and issues related thereto.

The CPIO, vide its letter dated 24.08.2018 provided a pointwise response to the Appellant. Dissatisfied by the response of the CPIO, the Appellant approached the FAA. The order of the FAA, if any, is not on the record of the Commission.

HEARING :

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Mr. Harkishan along with Mr. Milind P. Singh through VC;

Respondent: Mr. J. G. Subramanian, CPIO & Dy. Secy. through VC;

The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the information sought on points 04 and 05 of the application was wrongly denied by the CPIO stating that ''No such information is available", which is wrong and misleading. He further submitted that the "total number of candidates as per every center separately who appeared in the examination under reference along with the name and address of th