Personal information is protected under RTI Act unless larger public interest is demonstrated.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1.Heard Mr. Agha, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2. Vide order dated 08.09.2023, this Court passed the following order:-

“1. Office report dated 18.12.2021 indicates that the respondents are served, however, the respondents are not represented.

2. List the Petition for hearing on 29.09.2022, High on Board. It is made clear that if the respondents are not represented on the adjourned date of hearing, the Court shall proceed to hear the Petition and pass appropriate orders.”

3.It was made clear that if the Respondents fail to appear, the matter will be taken up for passing appropriate orders.

4.Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. The matter is heard finally, though, none appeared for the Respondents.

5.The record shows that the Respondents were duly served including Respondent No. 4, who is a private Respondent.

6.The Petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 08.09.2021 passed by the Goa State Information Commission in an Appeal bearing No. 162 of 2020, which was filed by Respondent No. 4, against the order of PIO of Directorate of Technical Education.

7. Respondent No. 4 filed an Application dated 10.07.2020 addressed to the PIO and Deputy Director (Planning), Directorate of Education, Porvorim under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [RTI Act, for short] requesting information of the Petitioner including her educational qualifications and residential certificate.

8. Vide communication dated 20.08.2020, the PIO informed Respondent No. 4 that such information cannot be provided to a third party.

9. Respondent No. 4 then approached the Goa State Information Commission by filing Appeal No. 162 of 2020, which was decided by the impugned order dated 08.09.2021. The learned State Chief Information Commissioner allowed the said Appeal and directed the PIO to furnish the information within 15 days.

10. The Petitioner is challenging such an impugned order on the ground that first of all, the Application filed by Respondent No. 4 is not in accordance with the procedure and format. Secondly, the information sought for is personal information and no reasons are disclosed as to why such information is required. Thirdly, it is claimed that the information sought for is not claimed in the larger public interest. Finally, it is claimed that if such information is provided, it would amount to an invasion of the privacy of the Petitioner.

11. Mr. Agha appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the State Chief Information Commissioner failed to appreciate the basic concept of the RTI Act and restrictions under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act wherein there is a prohibition of furnishing information without showing proper reasons. In this respect, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam & Another, (2018) 11 SCC 426 and the decision of this Court in the case of Deepak Pandharinath Vaingankar Vs. Mr. Suryakant Babu Naik & Others reported in 2019 (1) Goa Law Times 635.

12. The rival contentions fall for determination.

13. The Application filed by Respondent No. 4 is at page 22 wherein the information sought for is disclosed in the letter itself without mentioning the purpose and whether such information comes within the scope of Section 8 of the RTI Act.

14. The model form of the Application for seeking information is found appended to the RTI Act and is at page 47, which reads thus:

Note- (i) Reasonable assistance can be provided by authorised person in filling up the Form.

(ii) Please ensure that the Form is complete in all respect and there is no ambiguity in providing the details of information required.”

15. Apart from the requirement of giving particulars of the information/details, the Appl