“ 7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records, observes that while the FAA aptly pointed out the erroneous mention of Section 8(1)(f) of the RTI Act in the CPIO’s reply, however, the endorsement of the exemptions of Section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) and the introduction of Section 8(1)(j) by the FAA was neither justified nor warranted. The reasons tendered by the CPIO during the hearing for invoking the exemptions appeared to be rather labored and lacked substance. Moreover, the Commission is baffled to note that the CPIO was unaware of the fact that under the RTI Act, the Appellant is not required to mention any reasons for seeking information nor invariably establish larger public interest for justifying each request for information. Similarly, apprehended that a RTI Applicant may file more RTI Applications asking for further information is no reason to deny an existing request under the garb of all possible exemption clauses of the RTI Act.
