M. Venugopal, J.

The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition as against the order dated 10.01.2012 in Case No.10447/Enquiry/A/11 dated 10.01.2012 passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Chennai.

2. The Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Chennai, in Case No.10447/Enquiry/A/11 dated 10.01.2012 has, among other things, observed that 'A perusal of the appeal and the replies furnished by the public authority shows that the appellant has only asked for details relating to the number of subordinate Judges, employees, compliants of bribe and so on in the subordinate judiciary. He has not asked for details of anything which could be termed as Judicial proceedings or part of the Judicial process. During the enquiry it was also confirmed by the Assistant Public Information Officer that these details are received and collected by the Registry of the High Court routinely. Section 4 of the RTI Act very clearly defines the obligation of the public authorities. Most of the information sought for by the present appellant seem to be covered in this section. Such being the case the Hon'ble High Court, Madras, being a public authority, requires to provide access to these information unless expressly prohibited by a Competent forum or exempted as defined under various sections of the RTI Act. It is also observed that the appellant has asked only for statistical details and not names of individuals. Therefore, the argument of "un warranted invasion of privacy of individuals" is very weak and hence not accepted' and resultantly, allowed the appeal by directing the public authority (Writ Petitioner) to furnish the details within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.

3. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Registrar General, High Court of Madras, the impugned order dated 10.01.2012 in Case No.10447/Enquiry/A/11 passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Chennai is legally void and therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and as such, it is void ab initio.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Chennai, while passing the impugned order dated 10.01.2012, has failed 1st to appreciate an important fact that the information sought for by the Respondent/Petitioner is infringing the internal administration of Hon'ble High Court of Madras.

6. Yet another submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that if the request of the 1st Respondent/Petitioner is acceded to by the High Court of Madras, then, it will set a bad precedent for others.

7. Per contra, the 1st Respondent/Petitioner submits that he has enrolled as an Advocate in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry in the year 1986 and is practising before the High Court of Madras and before the trial Courts in Chennai. Also that, he is engaged in various social activities. Furthermore, he was appointed as an Assistant Solicitor General of India in the High Court of Madras during the period 20082009. He served as Special Government Pleader for the Tamil Nadu State during the year 2006 - 2008.

8. According to the 1st Respondent/Petitioner that he is the legal advisor of several Residents' Welfare Associations and Traders' Welfare Associations at K.K. Nagar, Chennai – 600 078. He served as President of Rotary Club of Madras, T.Nagar (20052006) and General Secretary of Anti Bribe Coalition, (a public trust) a wing of EXNORA international and an active member of India Against Corruption.

9. The 1st Respondent/Petitioner contends that he approached the Public Information Officer of the High Court, Madras to find out the mechanism and structure the High Court has to take action against the corrupt employees and the Presiding Officers of the Subordinate Judiciary and sought certain information, by means of