JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned counsels appearing for the respective respondents waive service of notice of rule on behalf of the respective respondents.

1.1 The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner-Gujarat University seeking appropriate writ and order for quashing of the order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) in proceeding No. No.CIC/SA/C/2015/000275. The following prayers have been made in the writ petition:

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition;

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature of certiorari, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing and setting aside the order dated 29.04.2016 passed in Proceeding No. CIS/SA/C/2015/000275 by respondent No.1 (Annexure-A);

(C) Pending the admission and final hearing of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay order dated 29.04.2016 passed in Proceeding No. CIC/SA/C/2015/000275 by respondent No. 1 (Annexure-A).

(D) Any other and further reliefs as deemed fit in the interest of justice may kindly be granted.”

2. The case of the petitioner, briefly stated is that Information Commissioner [IC] of the Central Information Commission [CIC] while hearing the Second Appeal No. CIC/SA/C/2015/000275/2015 filed by a third party [Neeraj Saxena] for supply of information about transportation request of Electoral Photo Identity Card of Respondent No.2, has passed the impugned ‘adjunct order’, whereby, it has suo moto, taken up an oral request of Respondent No.2; converted the same into an RTI application and allowed the said application by directing disclosure of the educational degree of the Prime Minister. The letter written by the Respondent No.2 reads as under:

IMAGE

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that the information which is directed to be given could not have been ordered in view of the exemption contained under Section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the Right To Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “RTI Act” for short). It is the specific case of the petitioner that RTI Act is intended to ensure transparency in “public functionaries” and is not enacted to satisfy just curiosity of strangers. This essential part becomes clear from section 8 (1) (e) and (j) of the RTI Act which mandates disclosure of information mentioned therein only on the condition stated therein and only after the applicant satisfying and the authority being satisfied about the existence of public interest in such disclosure.

4. It is further the case of the petitioner that the CIC without issuing notice to the petitioner and/or without calling its reply, in a proceeding where no application was filed by Respondent No 2 under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2015 [RTI Act] with the PIO of the petitioner and in a proceeding where the petitioner was not even a party has passed the impugned adjunct order directing the PMO to provide the specific number and year of the degree to the petitioner and directed the petitioner to make best possible search for the information regarding the degrees in the name of "Mr. Narendra Damodar Modi" in the year 1983 and provide it to Respondent No 2.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that CIC could not have orally considered the said request at the instance of respondent No.2 and treated it as a deemed application under the RTI Act merely on a tenuous plea that if respondent no 2, who is also a constitutional authority, has no objection in providing details of his personal information, then on the same analogy there cannot be any objection if the personal information in the form of education qualification certificates of the Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi is disclosed and made public. The tenor of the letter reproduced hereinabove indicates such a mind-set of the Respondent No.2

6. The petitioner has thus prayed before this court that the order passed by the IC of the CIC