JUDGMENT : (MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.) The petitioner, a retired Lt. Colonel from the Indian Army, contends that he is the lawful owner of a residential apartment, Sanjay Resorts, situated in Vivekananda Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram, having purchased the same through Sale Deed No.794/2008 of Sasthamangalam SRO from one Col. K.G. Pillai, also a retired Army officer. The petitioner had settled in Thiruvananthapuram post-retirement and was employed as the Chief Security Officer at Technopark, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. It is submitted that the fourth respondent, who owns Sanjay Resorts, resides on the third floor of the same apartment complex, and is a practising lawyer, has been continuously harassing the petitioner and other apartment owners. Litigations and proceedings between the petitioner and the fourth respondent revealed that they were not on good terms. 3. The petitioner alleges that in a further attempt to harass the petitioner, the 4 th respondent filed Ext.P3 application under the Right to Information Act 2005, before the 2 nd respondent, seeking the petitioner’s personal information, such as age, date of birth, and biodata. The petitioner filed Ext.P4 objections invoking Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, which exempts disclosure of personal information, unless it involves a larger public interest. Accepting the objections, the 2nd respondent rejected the application through Ext. P5. 4. Aggrieved, the 4 th respondent filed Ext.P6 first appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act before the 3 rd respondent, to which the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 objections. The appellate authority, i.e., the 3 rd respondent, directed the 2 nd respondent to furnish the information sought under Questions Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and rejected the request for personal details. 5. Dissatisfied, the 4 th respondent preferred a second appeal before the 1 st respondent, who, without issuing any notice to the petitioner as required under Section 19(4) of the RTI Act, passed Ext.P9 order directing the 2 nd respondent to disclose the personal details of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the same in W.P(C) No.41528/2016, and this Court, by Ext.P10 judgment dated 17.02.2017, set aside the said order and directed reconsideration of the matter. 6. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent passed a fresh order dated 29.04.2017 once again directing the disclosure of the petitioner’s personal information through Ext.P11. The petitioner submits that the said order is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the RTI Act. 7. 6. Pursuant thereto, the 1st respondent passed a fresh order dated 29.04.2017 once again directing the disclosure of the petitioner’s personal information through Ext.P11. The petitioner submits that the said order is illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the RTI Act. 7. It is contended that the personal information sought does not serve any public interest and is sought only with an intention to harass and take revenge on the petitioner, owing to personal enmity. The petitioner highlights that a similar earlier application, filed as Ext.P12 by the 4 th respondent, had already been rejected, and no appeal was preferred, and hence, a second application on the same issue is not maintainable. It is submitted that Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act clearly stipulates that personal information should not be disclosed unless it serves a larger public interest, which is conspicuously absent in the present case. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the 4 th respondent, it is contended that the RTI application filed on 12 th May 2015, sought certified copies of various documents pertaining to the petitioner's personal details submitted for his appointment. The information sought was as follows: 1. Certified copy of the appointment order of Mr.K.Jainendrakumar, S/o. Krishnan Nair, residing at TC 17/1296-7, Sanjay Resorts, Thirumala P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-06, now working as the Chief Security Officer, in Technopark, Kazhakootam, Thiruvananthapuram. 2. Certified copy of joining date, month & year of the said K.Jainendrakumar as the Chief Security Officer, in Technopark, Kazhakootam, Thiruvananthapuram. 3. Certified copy of the application form and bio-data submitted by the said K. Jainendrakumar before the Chief Executive Officer, Technopark, Kazhakootam, Thiruvananthapuram or the Governing Council, Technopark, Thiruvananthapuram or any other authority of Govt. of Kerala, for his appointment as the Chief Security Officer, in Technopark, Kazhakootam, Thiruvananthapuram. 4. Certified copy of the document for proving the said K. Jainendrakumar’s date of birth and year, filed by the said K. Jainendrakumar before the Chief Executive Officer, Technopark, Kazhakootam, Thiruvananthapuram or the Governing Council, Technopark, Thiruvananthapuram or any other authority of Govt. of Kerala, for his appointment as the Chief Security Officer, in Technopark, Kazhakootam. 5. Certified copy of contract if any, signed between the said K. Jainendrakumar and the Chief Executive Officer, Technopark, Kazhakootam, Thiruvananthapuram or the Governing Council, Technopark Thiruvananthapuram or any other authority of Govt. of Kerala, for his appointment as the Chief Security Officer, in Technopark, Kazhakootam. 5. Certified copy of contract if any, signed between the said K. Jainendrakumar and the Chief Executive Officer, Technopark, Kazhakootam, Thiruvananthapuram or the Governing Council, Technopark Thiruvananthapuram or any other authority of Govt. of Kerala, for his appointment as the Chief Security Officer, in Technopark, Kazhakootam, Thiruvananthapuram. 6. Is this the said K. Jainendrakumar, Chief Security Officer, Technopark, Kazhakootam, Thiruvananthapuram is a public servant or a Kerala Govt. servant? The answer may provide in the form of a certified copy. 9. In response to the RTI application, the respondent provided information relating to items 1, 2, 5 and 6, which pertained to the petitioner’s appointment and related documents. However, the respondent denied information concerning items 3 and 4, which related to the petitioner’s biodata and documents proving his date of birth, on the ground that these were third-party information. 10. The respondent contends that the information sought by the fourth respondent is not exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act. It is submitted that once the petitioner submits his personal details, including his bio-data and date of birth, to an authority and subsequently gets employment, this information has no more secrecy. When this information is furnished, it enters the public domain and any individual, like the respondent, has the right to collect this information. It is also submitted that the documents or certificates submitted by the employee to the recruitment authority, before his employment in the public authority, become part of his service record after appointment. Recruitment is a public activity, and the information relating to the recruitment of public servants is in the public domain. 11. The respondent further argues that as the petitioner is a public servant, his service-related information is not exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (j) of the RTI Act. The salary of government officers is paid from the public exchequer, and citizens have the right to access information regarding public servants, as they are performing public duties. Therefore, the respondent submits that the petitioner’s privacy interest in this information is outweighed by the public interest in its disclosure. 12. The respondent also refutes the petitioner’s contention that the 4th respondent had previously applied for the same information and did not appeal the rejection. Therefore, the respondent submits that the petitioner’s privacy interest in this information is outweighed by the public interest in its disclosure. 12. The respondent also refutes the petitioner’s contention that the 4th respondent had previously applied for the same information and did not appeal the rejection. The respondent asserts that the earlier application sought different details, and even if the same information had been sought before, there is no legal bar to filing a subsequent RTI request. Each RTI application should be considered on its own merits, and the petitioner’s claim of previous rejection does not affect the present request. 13. In reference to Ext.P1, the petitioner has cited the filing of O.P(C) No. 26 of 2017 before this Court, challenging the order of the Kerala State Information Commission, which was disposed of by Ext.R4(d) judgment dated 25.01.2017. The petitioner also filed a Revision Petition, R.P. No.201 of 2017, in relation to the same, which was disposed of by Ext.R4(e) judgment dated 08.03.2017. The respondent submits that none of the contentions raised in the writ petition are sustainable in law. The petitioner has challenged the operation of Ext.P1 without considering the legitimate public interest in the disclosure of the requested information. The interim order staying the operation of Ext.P1 was passed without notice to the respondent. 14. Heard Sri. Liju V. Stephen, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. M. Ajay, the learned Standing Counsel for the State Information Commission, Sri.D.Anil Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, and Sri. Dheeraj A.S., the learned Government Pleader. 15. The Public Information Officer rejected the application of the 4 th respondent, aggrieved by which the 4 th respondent had filed an appeal in which the 3 rd respondent Appellate Authority directed the 2 nd respondent to furnish the information sought under Question Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 and rejected the requests made as Question Nos.3 and 4. The 4th respondent had filed a second appeal before the 1 st respondent, who allowed the application without hearing the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner filed W.P(C) No.41528/2016 wherein the order was set aside through Ext.P10 judgment directing the 1st respondent to rehear the appeal. The 1 st respondent heard the parties and passed Ext.P11 order on 29.04.2017 directing to furnish the answers sought to Question Nos 3 and 4 as well. Ext.P11 order is under challenge in the writ petition. 16. Accordingly, the petitioner filed W.P(C) No.41528/2016 wherein the order was set aside through Ext.P10 judgment directing the 1st respondent to rehear the appeal. The 1 st respondent heard the parties and passed Ext.P11 order on 29.04.2017 directing to furnish the answers sought to Question Nos 3 and 4 as well. Ext.P11 order is under challenge in the writ petition. 16. A reading of the questions in dispute, namely Question Nos. 3 and 4 show that they come within the realm of information that relates to personal information. The relevant sections applicable in the instant case are extracted hereunder: “8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-- (1) 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 larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information.” 17. Section 11 is also relevant, and the relevant portion, namely Section 11(1), is extracted. “11. Section 11 is also relevant, and the relevant portion, namely Section 11(1), is extracted. “11. Third party information.-- (1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party as has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Provided that, except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.” 18. A reading of Section 8(1)(j) clearly pre-supposes that there is no bar in disclosing even a personal information which has no relation to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion to the privacy of the individual unless the Public Information Officer or the appellate authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information. 19. As held by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal [ (2020) 5 SCC 481 ] Sections 8 and 11 must be read together. Thus, in every case where the information requested is personal information within the operation of Section 8(1)(j), the procedure of notice and objections under Section 11 must be complied with. Thus, in every case where the information requested is personal information within the operation of Section 8(1)(j), the procedure of notice and objections under Section 11 must be complied with. These sections were construed to create a substantive system of checks and balances, which seeks to balance the right of the applicant to receive the information with the right of the third party to prevent the disclosure of personal information by permitting the latter to contest the proposed disclosure. The Constitution Bench also held as under : “34. Clauses in sub-section (1) to Section 8 can be divided into two categories: clauses (a), (b), (c), (f), (g), (h) and (I), and clauses (d), (e) and (j). The latter clauses state that the prohibition specified would not apply or operate when the competent authority in clauses (d) and (e) and the PIO in clause (j) is satisfied that larger public interest warrants disclosure of such information. Therefore, clauses (d), (e) and (j) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act incorporate qualified prohibitions and are conditional and not absolute exemptions. Clauses (10, (b), (c), (f), (g), (h) and (I) do not have any such stipulation. Prohibitory stipulations in these clauses do not permit disclosure of information on satisfaction of the larger interest rule. These clauses, therefore, incorporate absolute exclusions.” It was also held: “58. Clause (j) to sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act specifically refers to invasion of the right to privacy of an individual and excludes from disclosure information that would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of such individual, unless the disclosure would satisfy the larger public interest test. This clause also draws a distinction in its treatment of personal information, whereby disclosure of such information is exempted if such information has no relation to public activity or interest. We would like to, however, clarify that in their treatment of this exemption, this Court has treated the word “information” which is disclosed would lead to invasion of privacy to mean personal information, as distinct from public information. This aspect has been dealt with in the succeeding paragraphs.” 20. We would like to, however, clarify that in their treatment of this exemption, this Court has treated the word “information” which is disclosed would lead to invasion of privacy to mean personal information, as distinct from public information. This aspect has been dealt with in the succeeding paragraphs.” 20. In the instant case, the appellate authority has not considered even the impact of Section 8 (1)(j) or Section 11 and had directed the disclosure of the information sought solely on the basis that the documents sought for are public documents to which the appellant has a right to claim under the Right to Information Act. There is no finding as to whether there was any overriding public interest. There is also no basis for the finding that, since the information sought pertains to “Public Documents”, it has to be disclosed on application. There is no definition of ‘Public Documents’ in the Act. Section 3 of the Act itself stipulates that, subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information. “Information” in turn is defined as any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, 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; Similarly, “record” is also defined as (i) any document, manuscript and file; (ii) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document; (iii) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and (iv) any other material produced by a computer or any other device. 21. Merely because the documents are submitted to the public authority for recruitment purposes or if the said documents can be treated as public documents, will have to be considered in the backdrop of the rigour of Section 8(1)(j) or Section 11 when it comes to disclosure of personal information. None of these aspects relevant under the Act were considered while passing the impugned order. Under such circumstances, the order of the State Information Authority cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. None of these aspects relevant under the Act were considered while passing the impugned order. Under such circumstances, the order of the State Information Authority cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. There will be a direction to the 1st respondent to rehear the Second Appeal, with notice to the petitioner and the 4th respondent, and pass orders afresh, strictly in terms of the Right to Information Act and also taking note of the observations stated above. This shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.