Heard learned counsel for parties.
The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner who is an Assistant Teacher seeking the following reliefs:-
"Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to 5 to not to provide any kind of information pertains to the petitioner without prior permission of the petitioner to the private respondents or to any person."
Despite repeated opportunities, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to draw the attention of the Court to any information sought by the private respondents which would amount to a violation or invasion of his right to privacy. In any case the information which is sought would have to be necessarily considered by the Basic Education Officer as not falling within the ambit of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. That clause reads thus:-
(j) 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 the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
The aforesaid provision clearly takes care of the apprehension of the petitioner. It would thus be open to him to assert before the Public Information Officer that the nature of the disclosure sought would be in violation of the aforesaid provision. Since the law adequately protects the interests of the petitioner, there is no cause for this Court to entertain a writ petition on that score.
The writ petition is clearly frivolous and shall stand dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.8.2021 Faraz