The Court emphasized the need for a case-by-case determination of disclosure based on public interest and the distinction between 'personal information' and information relating to public activity or interest under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

ORDER :

1. Heard Ms. S.G. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1, 4 and 7. Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel appears for the respondent nos.3, 6 and 9 and Mr. H.K. Sarmah, learned counsel appears for the respondent nos.2, 5 and 8.

2. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the actions of the respondent authorities in not providing the information as requested by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 20050 from the Public Information Officer of the respondent authorities.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had pursuant to an Advertisement on 01.12.2020 applied for recruitment as the Assistant Manager as well as Junior Manager in the Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Limited (AEGCL), Assam Power Generation Corporation Limited (APGCL) and Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL). The petitioner was selected as the Junior Manager in Assam AEGCL and he joined the post of his place of posting on 03.03.2021 and is presently working as Junior Manager in 132 KV Sivasagar Grid Sub-Station, Sivasagar. Subsequently the petitioner could come to learn that some of the candidates who have got lesser marks than the petitioner have been appointed as the Assistant Manager by the respondent Corporations and as such the petitioner filed applications under the Act of 2005 before the Public Information Officers of the aforesaid three Corporations asking for the information. On 21.08.2021, the petitioner was given the information by the Public Information Officer of the APGCL to the effect as regards the marks obtained by the petitioner. However, there was no information given as regards the marks obtained by the selected candidates on the ground that the information comes within the ambit of “personal information” related to a third party and the disclosure of such information is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It may also be relevant to note that the other respondent entities i.e. the Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Limited and the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited did not provide any information under the Act of 2005. Being aggrieved the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who submits that the information so sought for is not “personal information” and as such the question of exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act of 2005 cannot be made applicable. She further submits that the information which was sought for by the petitioner was an information pertaining to how much marks the selected candidates got who have been appointed as Assistant Manager of the three respondent Corporations which is nothing but an information relating to public activity by the Respondent Corporations in discharge of their duties. On the other hand, Mr. TJ. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1, 4 and 7, Mr. S.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.3, 6 and 9 and Mr. H.K. Sarmah, learned counsel appearing on behalf the respondent nos.2, 5 and 8 submitted that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of the existence of an alternative remedy inasmuch as, if the petitioner was aggrieved for non-furnishing of the information the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Act of 2005. The Counsels for the respondents therefore submitted that this is not a case where any Writ is required to be issued on the ground that there is an alternative remedy.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties the question which emerges in the instant case is as to whether the information which was sought for by the petitioner would be a personal information and thereby exempted under Sect