M. Venugopal, J.

1. The Petitioner has preferred the instant Writ of Certiorari, praying for issuance of an order in calling for the records in Case No.40997/Enquiry/A/2011, dated 02.07.2012, on the file of the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Chennai and quash the same.

2. Earlier, the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Chennai, while passing orders in Case No.40997/Enquiry/A/2011 on 02.07.2012 (filed by the Respondent) in Paragraphs 3 and 4, has observed as under:

“3. The Petitioner has preferred the first appeal under Section 19(1) to the appellate authority on 30.06.2011. The appellate authority has furnished the information on 24.08.2011 to the petitioner. Not satisfied with the information supplied, the petitioner has filed the second appeal under Section 19(3) to the Commission on 28.09.2011. On the basis of the petitioner/appellant's second appeal to the Commission, this Commission has issued a direction on 31.10.2011 directing the appellate authority to send his remarks on the comments made by the petitioner to the Commission on 31.10.2011. The petitioner again has filed a petition before the Commission on 20.04.2012. Based on the petition dt.20.04.2012 today's enquiry was conducted.

4. During the enquiry, the petitioner has stated that he has not received the required information from the Public Information Officer till now. The Asst. Public Information Officer who appeared before the Commission requested two weeks time to furnish the information. The Commission was inclined to accept the request of the Public Authority and the time requested by the APIO was granted. But, at the same time, it was noticed that there has been a delay of 56 days by the public authority in informing the petitioner about the procedure for applying for copies. The appellate authority has furnished this information only on 24.08.2011 for the appeal filed on 30.06.2011. Therefore, the information shall be supplied free of cost as per Section 7(6) of the R.T.I. Act, 2005.”

And resultantly, directed the Public Information Officer (Office of the Registrar, High Court) to furnish copies of all Diary notings and hearing records of CMSA No.10 of 2007 of Madras High Court, to the Respondent (Petitioner/Appellant), free of cost, by 11.07.2012 and report compliance to the Commission.

3. Assailing the correctness of the orders dated 02.07.2012 in Case No.40997/Enquiry/A/2011, passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Chennai, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Registrar General, High Court, submits that the impugned orders dated 02.07.2012 passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission are void ab initio, because of the fact that the said orders are in negation of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the impugned orders, dated 02.07.2012, have been passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Chennai, without considering the fact that the information sought for by the respondent is barred, as per the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner projects an argument that information sought for by the Respondent is covered under the Rules of the High Court, Madras, Appellate Side, 1965.

6. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the request of the petitioner in regard to the copy of the Mediation report in the matter of SLP (Civil) 19109 of 2009, Supreme Court Letter No.D.No.2796/XII/2009, dated 22nd April 2010 and the copy of the Mediation report in the matter of CMSA No.10 of 2007 on the file of this Court Letter No.File No.349/2007, dated 28th Nov. 2007, cannot be furnished to the Respondent/Petitioner, because of the fact that the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision Moti Ram (dead) through Lrs and another v. Ashok Kumar and another, (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 466, at Page 467, has clearly held that the discussions and proposals in regard to the mediation should no