:
2. Appellant through his RTI application sought for copies of the recommendation made by the institute recommending Madhur Hasija, Copy of the minutes of committee report of Madhur Hasija at the time of recommendation were made etc. PIO provided para wise reply. Being unsatisfied with PIO reply, the appellant made First Appeal. First Appellate Authority upheld the PIO reply. Claiming nonfurnishing of information as per the RTI application, appellant approach the Commission through this present second appeal. Proceedings Before the Commission:
3. The Commission directs the respondent officer to provide separate copy of entire records pertaining to appointment of Mr. Madhu Hasija for Ph.D. in January, 2012 along with the recommendations made by the authorities and any other papers relating to fellowship including Fulbright fellowship, minutes of committee report, copies of SGPA and CGPA along with the comments of each members etc. The Commission do not agree with the contention of the respondent authority invoking Sec 8 (j), as the evaluation of Ph.D and other details were neither personal nor third party information. Appellant, the brother of the Madhu Hasija stated that his brother was in depression, and it is necessary to know such information for him. The public authority did not show any reason to disbelieve the statement of the appellant.