Respondent No.4 herein applied to respondent No.6 – the Public Information Officer, General Administration Department, Mumbai to supply the information of assets and liabilities of the petitioners. Respondent No.4 was informed by respondent No.6 that such information cannot be supplied as that would invade the privacy of individual. An appeal was preferred before the first appellate authority, who also rejected the appeal. Respondent No.4, therefore, preferred second appeal before the State Information Commissioner, Nagpur Division. The Commissioner directed the information to be supplied. The order was challenged before this court by the petitioners and this court set aside the order and directed the Commissioner to decide the preliminary objections raised by the petitioners in the second appeal before the Commissioner. Respondent No. 3 – State Information Commissioner rejected the objection. He found that the Chief Information Commissioner had no right to issue an administrative order that Chief Information Commissioner would alone hear the appeals in such matters. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the said order.”
