Hon'ble VYAS, J.—Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by petitioner Hardev Arya, in which, following prayer is made: "(1) That the orders dtd. 16.2.2011, 28.3.2011 and 16.7.2012 are passed by the respondents authorities may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set aside and the information sought within Annexure 02 by the respondent may kindly be ordered to be provided to the petitioner. (2) Any other appropriate order or direction by which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. Brief facts of the case are that an institution named Arya Kanya Gurukul Chhawani- Sheoganj is a registered society. The said institution is imparting education and schools are running with other social activities within Sheoganj (District Sirohi). The petitioner while having observations over the working of the said institution with regard to legality of the institution, for safeguarding public interest at large, filed an application before respondent No. 1 seeking requisite detail with regard to opening of bank account of the said institution under Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The application filed by the petitioner was rejected vide for dated 16.2.2011 in view of Section 8(j) of the Act of 2005, read with Section 13 of the Banking Companies Act, 1970; and, in the rejection order, respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner that under Section 8(j) of the Act of 2005 and under Section 13 of the Banking Companies Act, 1970 no information as desired by the petitioner can be given to third party because it is not in public interest. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 16.2.2011 preferred an appeal before the appellate authority of the Punjab National Bank at Delhi which was transferred to the appropriate forum having jurisdiction to hear the matter viz., Public Information Appellate Authority, Assistant General Manager, Divisional Office, Jodhpur. Said appellate authority rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 28.3.2011, in which, again, it is specifically observed that the required information of bank account of Arya Kanya Gurukul Chhawani-Sheoganj cannot be given to third party and upheld the order passed by respondent No. 1. 4. Said appellate authority rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner vide order dated 28.3.2011, in which, again, it is specifically observed that the required information of bank account of Arya Kanya Gurukul Chhawani-Sheoganj cannot be given to third party and upheld the order passed by respondent No. 1. 4. The petitioner again preferred second appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act against both the orders before the Public Information Commissioner, Jaipur which was transferred to the Central Information Commission. Vide order dated 16.7.2012 the said appellate authority while upholding the order passed by the first appellate authority dismissed the second appeal. 5. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the validity of above orders and submits that the rejection of the petitioner's prayer for supplying bank account of the aforesaid institution is totally unwarranted because as per Section 7, at the time of disposal of request by the respondent authorities, they are under obligation to consider Section 8(j) of the Act of 2005 objectively; but, while giving wrong interpretation to the said provision the respondents rejected the prayer of the petitioner for supplying information with regard to bank account of the institution, therefore, all the orders impugned may be quashed and respondent No. 1 may be directed to supply information with regard to particulars of bank account of the Arya Kanya Gurukul Chhawani-Sheoganj forthwith. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I have perused all the three orders impugned in this writ petition. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner is neither member of the Arya Kanya Gurukul Chhawani Sheoganj Institution nor he has disclosed in the writ peti-tion how he is interested with the functioning of the said institution. Therefore, being third party, he made request to the Bank for seeking the information. 8. I have perused Section 8(j) of the Act of 2005 which reads as under: "8. Therefore, being third party, he made request to the Bank for seeking the information. 8. I have perused Section 8(j) of the Act of 2005 which reads as under: "8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-(l) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,- (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 large public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person." 9. Upon perusal of the above provision, in which, exemption from disclosure of information is provided, it is obvious that there is power left with the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or appellate authority to deny such information which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the authority concerned is satisfied that larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. 10. Here, in this case, all the authorities observed in their respective order that as per Section 8(j) of the Act of 2005, read with Section 13 of the Banking Companies Act, 1970, no information can be given to third party. But, time and again, the petitioner is insisting for supplying the information to him, that too, without disclosing how he is interested in the functioning of the said institution. 11. It emerges from the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the purpose of obtaining such information is to misuse or threaten the institution, therefore, all the authorities declined to give information with regard to bank account of the society. In my opinion, such type of litigation is required to be discouraged because it is not related to public interest nor intention of the petitioner is for any public interest. 12. It is true that Parliament has enacted the Right to Information Act for transparency in administration, so also, affairs of the State so as to strengthen the faith and trust of the people in the governance of the country. 12. It is true that Parliament has enacted the Right to Information Act for transparency in administration, so also, affairs of the State so as to strengthen the faith and trust of the people in the governance of the country. Therefore, the Act is a vital weapon in the hands of the citizens. At the same time, however, this may not be lost sight of that no law shall be allowed to be wielded unlawfully so as to put it to abuse or misuse. Every statute acts and operates within its scope and ambit, therefore, the duty rests with the Courts to discourage litigious obduracy. 13. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders in this writ petition. However, conduct of the petitioner in this case is far from fair. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. The amount of cost shall be deposited by the petitioner with the Secretary, Free Legal Aid Board, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur within one month. The Deputy Registrar (Judl.) shall ensure that amount of cost is deposited by the petitioner within the stipulated time and, in the even of default, the matter shall be reported to the Court.