ORDER Dr. Bhakthavatsala, J. The petitioner is before this Court praying for quashing the order dated 30.06.2006 at AnneXure ‘G’. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the writ petition may be stated as under: The Respondent No.3 who is-a retired Statistical Inspector made an application dated 17.03.2006 (Annexure-B) to the 1st Respondent to furnish copy of Assets and Liabilities statement of the petitioner for the period 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05. The petitioner filed his objections to the application. The Respondent No.1, considering the statement of objections filed by the petitioner, rejected the application by an order at Annexure ‘E’. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Respondent No.1, the Respondent No.3 filed an appeal under Section 19(8) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Respondent No.2/Appellate Authority. The respondent No.2/Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Respondent No.1 and directed the petitioner to furnish the details sought for by the Respondent No.3. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court praying for quashing the impugned order at Annexure ‘G’ on the file of Respondent No.2. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent No.3 had no locus-standi to seek the details of petitioner’s Assets and Liabilities statement and the personal information of the petitioner sought for is not pertaining to public affair of the public authority. But, the Respondent N0. 2/Appellate Authority erred in setting aside the order made by Respondent No.1 and directing the petitioner to furnish the information as sought for by the Respondent No.3. 4. It is necessary to refer and excerpt Section 2(f), (h), (j) and Section 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, ‘the Act’). “2 (f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advice, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; (g) .............. ......... .................. ......... .................. (h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted- (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government and includes any (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; (i) ... ... ... ... ... (j) “right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of materials; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device.” 5. The object of the Act is to provide right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. In view of the above provisions excerpted, it cannot be said that Section 2(f) of the Act encompasses the personal information of the officials of the public authority. The intention of the legislation is to provide right to information to a citizen pertaining to public affairs of the public authority. Therefore, the respondent No.3 had no right under the Act to seek personnal information ofthe petitioner. The respondent No.2/appellate authority has erred in directing the petitioner to furnish the information as sought for by the respondent No.3. As the respondent’s application is vexatious and it is an attempt made to settle scores with the petitioner, it is a fit case to impose heavy costs in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent No. 3. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- in favour ofthe petitioner and against respondent No.3. The impugned order dated 30.6.2006 atAnnexure-G is quashed. The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit costs ofRs. 5,000/- in this Court within three months from today.