The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of public authorities to provide information under the Right to Information Act, the definition of 'public authority' under the Act, and the balance between the right to privacy and the right to information.

1. The petitioner was working as the Deputy Manager in Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Limited (TNPL) at the time of filing of the writ petition. It is informed that subsequently he has resigned. The fourth respondent made an application to the Public Information Officer of TNPL seeking information under the Right to Information Act ("the Act" in short) regarding the details of the petitioners annual gross income. The fourth respondent had not given any reasons for this request. The Chief Manager, Human Resources of TNPL by his letter dated 19-10-2006 declined to give the information on the ground that it is of a personal nature and that it would not be revealed to a third person without the authorisation of the concerned employee. The letter also informed the fourth respondent that TNPL was not bound by the provisions of the Act. Aggrieved by this, the fourth respondent filed an appeal under Section 19 of the Act. The first respondent-Commission passed the impugned order on 13-11-2006 holding that "All Government Public Sector Undertakings come under the purview of the Act as per Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Specific information must be given to all the queries immediately and reported to the Commission." The petitioner is aggrieved that without any discussion or consideration of the fact that this information is personal in nature, the impugned order has been passed. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed to quash the said order insofar as it directs the respondents 2 and 3 to provide the information to all the queries raised by the fourth respondent.

2. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Silambanan appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that as per Section 8 of the Act, information 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 a person shall not be given, unless the authority is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. According to the learned Senior counsel, the impugned order does not indicate that the first respondent was satisfied that larger public interest prevailed over the provisions of Section 8 of the Act which protected disclosure of personal information. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that TNPL is not a public authority as defined by Section 2(h) of the Act.

3. Counter has been filed by the respondents 2 and 3. The learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 would submit that the Government of Tamil Nadu holds only 35.10%of the total equity capital and therefore, the TNPL is not a "public authority" and that the details relating to the gross annual income are kept confidential and that the motive for the fourth respondent to seek this information is not clear and that there is no merit in the request made by the fourth respondent. The learned counsel however, would submit that the TNPL would abide by the directions of this Court.

4. The fourth respondent has filed a vacate stay petition and as per the affidavit filed in support thereof, it is seen that earlier the fourth respondent had challenged the selection of the petitioners wife for allotment of LPG distributorship. The allotment of this distributorship gave rise to W.P.No.18544 of 2006 which was dismissed by this Court on merits. Subsequently, the fourth respondent made an application to the third respondent to give details regarding the annual gross income of the petitioner. According to the fourth respondent this would prove that the petitioners wife did not satisfy the eligibility criteria for allotment of distributor and that the allotment is illegal. The learned counsel submitted that Section 8 of the Act relates to other information which are personal in nature, the disclosure of which would amount to invasion into the privacy, but details regarding the income of the petitioner received from a public authority cannot be sai