JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 06.10.2015 (annexure-5), passed by respondent no.1 in File No. CIC/SH/A/2014/002357/KY. 2. Certain informations were sought for by the respondent no. 3, which informations were related to the name of nominee nominated by his late brother in his PF and Gratuity etc. (retiral benefits). Respondent no.3 is the real brother of late Shri Vinod Kumar alias Rajkumar. Respondent no.3 wanted to know the name of the nominee, nominated by his brother in his PF and Gratuity Account. The matter was finally decided by the Central Information Commissioner vide impugned order dated 06.10.2015 as below: “In view of the above, the objection taken by respondents is not legally tenable and deserves to be turned down in the larger public interest as defined under Section 8 (2) of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, it is hereby turned down. Further, the Commission also feels that for the safety of the so called nominee, the address of the nominee may not be provided. Subject to this condition, the appellant’s second appeal deserves to be allowed.” 3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that such informations have been sought by respondent no.3 to settle personal score with the petitioner. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that such an information shall be used by respondent no. 3 in a civil suit pending in Hathras, and in another matter pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in it’s Bench at Lucknow, therefore, such informations should not be given to respondent no.3. 4. This Court is unable to accept such contention of learned counsel for the petitioner for the following reasons: (i) The Right to Information Act, 2005 was passed in order to ensure greater and more effective access to information. (ii) The earlier law was required to be more progressive, participatory and meaningful to a practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, and in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, among others. (ii) The earlier law was required to be more progressive, participatory and meaningful to a practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, and in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, among others. (iii) Clauses (e) and (j) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 provide as follows: 8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,- (a) ………… (b) ………… (c) ………… (d) ………… (e) Information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; (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. (2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority may allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweighs the harm to the protected interests. [Emphasis supplied] (IV) Whenever any person moves an application under RTI Act, he is not required to disclose the reason for which such information is sought. He is also not supposed to disclose the object for seeking such an information. 5. The Central Information Commission, vide order under challenge has elaborately dealt with and has given cogent reasons as to how the objection taken by the writ petitioner is not legally tenable and deserves to be turned down in the larger public interest as defined under Section 8 (2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. This Court, therefore, does not see any reason to interfere in the same. 6. Writ Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. 7. Personal allegations, which have been levelled against the petitioner by respondent no. 3 are, however, expunged, on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner.