JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the impugned order in Dispute No.28192/10 on the file of the Commissioner, Tamilnadu Information Commissioner, Chennai-18 and QUASH the same and direct the respondents to furnish copy of the documents and statements sought by the petitioner by application dated 26.12.2008 under Right to Information Act.) The writ petition is filed, challenging the order impugned dated 21.12.2010 passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission and a direction is sought for to furnish the copy of the documents and statements sought by the petitioner in his application dated 26.12.2008 filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as the -RTI Act-] 2. The petitioner was working as the Headmaster of Zamindar Street School and a complaint against the petitioner was filed regarding the alleged Sexual Harassment. The complaint was filed by One Smt.S.Vasantha. The Committee constituted by the respondents, conducted an enquiry into the complaint. The petitioner sought for the copy of the enquiry report and the said report was not furnished. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also rejected and earlier, the petitioner filed W.P.No.30887 of 2008. 3. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that the application submitted under the RTI Act, seeking informations were not responded. The complaint filed by him before the Tamil Nadu Information Commission was also rejected. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner mainly contended that the rejection of information under Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act is untenable as the writ petitioner has sought for certain questions, which would be relevant for the purpose of defending his case. It is contended that 8 (1) (g) of the Act cannot be an impediment for the purpose of providing such informations sought for by the petitioner as those informations are necessary for the purpose of defending the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the rejection order passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission is untenable. 5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner relied on the judgment in the case of M.Velayutham Vs. The Registrar Tamil Nadu Information Commission, reported in CDJ 2010 MHC 1537 and the relevant paragraphs 10 and 11 are extracted hereunder: 10. Therefore, the rejection order passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission is untenable. 5. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner relied on the judgment in the case of M.Velayutham Vs. The Registrar Tamil Nadu Information Commission, reported in CDJ 2010 MHC 1537 and the relevant paragraphs 10 and 11 are extracted hereunder: 10. Before closing the case it must be noted that whenever a person challenges the order of the State or Central Information Commission, it is not necessary to make the Commission a party to the writ petition. The Commission is a statutory appellate authority and is expected to function within the four corners of the RTI Act. If its orders are under challenge, the Commission is not expected to defend it. In a writ for certiorari the order will have to speak for itself. If the Commission is made as a party, it will be an unnecessary drain on the Commission to engage counsel to defend its orders. In no case a court is expected to defend its decisions. More often, the Commission-s orders are challenged by the Government departments or information officers at the expense of the Government. In these cases, the applicant who sought the information will be a party and will be expected to defend his request. 11. Only for the purpose of calling for records or sending a copy of the order, the Information Commission need not be made as a party. If the persons who do not file proper records, then a notice may be sent by the Registry to call for the records if ordered by the courts. Likewise, on complicated matters if any legal assistance is required, the Court can appoint an -amicus curiae- to help the Court. The orders of the Court on all matters involving the Right to Information Act, as a matter of routine, can be marked to the appropriate Commission. The Registry shall henceforth must ask the counsel who files writ petitions to delete the Information Commission from the array of parties. This will not only reduce the paper work and administrative difficulties faced by the Commission, besides saving them draining their meagre resources.” 6. In the case of Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji Vs. The Registry shall henceforth must ask the counsel who files writ petitions to delete the Information Commission from the array of parties. This will not only reduce the paper work and administrative difficulties faced by the Commission, besides saving them draining their meagre resources.” 6. In the case of Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 2015 (9) SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has elaborately considered the right of the information seekers and rejection of such application under the RTI Act in a casual manner. Relying on the said judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the order of rejection is improper and liable to be set aside. 7. In the case of The Nonsuch Tea Estates Ltd., Vs. The State Chief Information Commissioner, The Public Information Officer & Personal Assistant (General), Chennai & Others, reported in CDJ 2010 MHC 4236, this Court has made an observation that rejection on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to get the information under the RTI Act was improper. In the said case, the rejection was made under Section 8(1) (g) and so also, in the present case, the impugned order is passed, invoking Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act and thus, the writ petition is to be considered. 8. The respondents filed counter affidavit. The counter affidavit states that one of the Teachers namely Smt.S.Vasantha gave a petition to Sivagangai District Social Welfare Officer. The said Teacher described various harassment caused to her by the Secretary and Headmaster (I/c) of the School. She revealed that the monetary benefits of the Teachers were not sanctioned by the Headmaster of the School. The misbehaviour of the Headmaster has affected the Teachers mentally. Thus, the Enquiry committee was constituted. The Teachers were examined individually and they have given detailed statements of the School and the manner in which they were harassed by the Headmaster of the School. Thus, the competent authorities of the Education Department ordered for Direct Payment to the Teachers and Staff of the School and the School should be under the control of the District Educational Officer, Devakottai. Challenging the said order, W.P.No.30887 of 2008 was filed. The complainant Smt.Vasantha levelled various allegations including sexual and other abnormal harassments in working place. Thus, the competent authorities of the Education Department ordered for Direct Payment to the Teachers and Staff of the School and the School should be under the control of the District Educational Officer, Devakottai. Challenging the said order, W.P.No.30887 of 2008 was filed. The complainant Smt.Vasantha levelled various allegations including sexual and other abnormal harassments in working place. The writ petitioner filed a complaint before the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, who in turn, issued a direction to the authorities to furnish informations. Then the authorities placed all the records before the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, who in turn, examined the nature of allegations and the informations sought for by the petitioner and thereafter, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner by invoking Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act. 9. Considering the arguments, let us now look into the spirit of Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, which reads as follows: 8. Exemption from disclosure of information. (1)...................... (g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes.” 10. No doubt, various circumstances are enumerated. Disclosure of any information of which would endanger the life of any other person or physical safety of any person or identify the source of informations are the circumstances, wherein the Public information officer is empowered to decline the request of the information seeker to furnish the informations and documents. 11. In the present case, one Teacher Smt.Vasantha was the complainant. There are several allegations against the Secretary and the Headmaster of the Aided School. The writ petitioner was the Headmaster. Allegation of Sexual Harassment, Mental Agony and there was an allegation from many Teachers that the salaries were not being paid properly. The competent authorities of the Education Department appointed a committee and simultaneously initiated action, imposing Direct Payment under the provisions of the Private Aided Schools Regulations Act. Thus, the School was under the control of the District Educational Officer. The Enquiry committee was obtaining statement from the Teachers and other persons concerned and was in the process of proceeding with the enquiry. Under those circumstances, the petitioner submitted an application seeking information under the RTI Act on 26.12.2008. Thus, the School was under the control of the District Educational Officer. The Enquiry committee was obtaining statement from the Teachers and other persons concerned and was in the process of proceeding with the enquiry. Under those circumstances, the petitioner submitted an application seeking information under the RTI Act on 26.12.2008. The nature of informations sought for by the petitioner reveals that how many Teachers have given complaint to the District Educational Officer. If so, enclose the copy of the complaint and photograph of those Teachers. The petitioner further sought for the number of pages in the file maintained by the District Educational Officer with reference to proceedings dated 20.09.2008 and 05.11.2008, whether Smt.Vasantha has given a complaint against the Headmaster under the Domestic Violence Act and Sexual Harassment Act before the District Educational Officer. If so, on what date she has given a complaint and enclose the photocopy of the documents. The Secondary Grade Teachers S.Chitra and K.Dhanalakshmi given a complaint against the Headmaster by stating that they were harassed and sustained mental agony due to the activities of the Headmaster and they were attempting to Suicide. If any such complaint is filed by these two Teachers, furnish the photocopy of the complaint. The other questions are also relating to the complaints, complainants, their photographs and the Xerox copies of the documents etc., 12. Perusal of the informations sought for by the writ petitioner, no doubt if furnished, would infringe the rights of the complainants to pursue their complaint effectively. The personal informations of the Teacher-s Photographs and Xerox copies sought for by the petitioner undoubtedly would endanger the life or physical safety of the complainant and other persons. Even for security purposes, such personal informations, complaints regarding Sexual Harassment are to be protected in all circumstances and the Courts have also repeatedly held that even the identity of the complainant should not have revealed on some occasions. The names cannot be used. All depends on facts and circumstances of each case. 13. Certain reports, allegations regarding Sexual Harassment, which all are kept confidential, need not be provided to the information seekers under the RTI Act. In those circumstances, the competent authorities / Public Information Officer is justified in declining the information by invoking Section 8 of the RTI Act. All depends on facts and circumstances of each case. 13. Certain reports, allegations regarding Sexual Harassment, which all are kept confidential, need not be provided to the information seekers under the RTI Act. In those circumstances, the competent authorities / Public Information Officer is justified in declining the information by invoking Section 8 of the RTI Act. No doubt, it is the -subjective satisfaction- of the authorities and if the authorities formed an opinion with reference to the ingredients contemplated under Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act. In the present case such reasons are justified and thus, then there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the authorities in this regard. When several circumstances are enumerated under Section 8 (1) (g), the authorities in the present case considered the nature of the informations sought for by the information seeker (petitioner) and invoked Section 8 (1) (g) and rejected the application. The Tamil Nadu Information Commission also conducted an enquiry, perused the documents and formed an opinion that the Public Information Officer is justified in not furnishing the informations to the applicant. 14. This being the factum established, this Court do not find any perversity or infirmity as such. 15. As far as the judgments cited supra are concerned, the facts are absolutely incomparable and dissimilar. Thus, the facts and circumstances of the cases decided and relied upon by the petitioner are of no avail to the petitioner for the purpose of getting the relief in the present writ petition. Each and every case of the present nature is to be decided on facts and circumstances as the informations sought for by the information seeker plays a pivotal role in taking a decision. It is always the nature of information sought for, is the factor to be considered for the purpose of invoking Section 8 of the RTI Act. Once the informations sought for reveals that the same may would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes, then the Public Information Officer is justified in rejecting the application submitted by the information seeker. 16. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, by not impleading the Tamil Nadu Information Commission as a party in the writ proceedings. 16. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, by not impleading the Tamil Nadu Information Commission as a party in the writ proceedings. Thus, the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, No.2, Sir Theagaraya Road, Near Aalai Amman Koil, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018 is suo motu impleaded as 4th respondent in the present writ petition and the learned counsel for the impleaded respondent also submitted his arguments by contending that the order of rejection was passed by the Commission only after perusal of files and therefore, the writ petition is to be rejected. 17. Right to Information Act is an enactment, providing the citizen to get informations from the public authorities and institutions. Thus, any application submitted under the RTI Act is independent and to be dealt in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act and not otherwise. In the present case, the informations sought for by the petitioner was rejected by invoking Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act. Even Section 8 (1) (e) is also relevant with reference to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The rejection of the application submitted by the petitioner under the RTI Act would not dis-entitle him to defend the allegations before the competent authority at the time of conduct of enquiry with reference to the complaint filed by the women employees. In other words, the documents and informations sought for by the petitioner will be adjudicated during the enquiry and the petitioner would be getting an opportunity to defend his case. Thus, the right of defense is unconnected with the application submitted under the RTI Act. Rejection of the application under the RTI Act will not cause any prejudice with reference to the right of the delinquent official from defending his case in the enquiry proceedings. Thus, the order of rejection would not infringe the right of the petitioner from defending his case before the competent authority under the Sexual Harassment Act or under the Disciplinary Rules of the Department. Thus, this Court is of an opinion that the application under the RTI Act cannot be related to the disciplinary proceedings or any other proceedings pending before the other competent authorities under various enactments or the rules in force. 18. This being the principles to be followed, the writ petition deserves no merit consideration and consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.