M. Venugopal, J.

1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari as against the order dated 22.05.2012 in Case No.11224/Enquiry/A/2012 passed by the 2nd Respondent/Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Chennai.

2. The 2nd Respondent/Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Chennai, while passing the order in Case No.11224/Enquiry/A/2012 dated 22.05.2012, has, among other things, observed that 'it is contended on behalf of Public Information Officer that even though this order passed on administrative side by the Hon'ble High Court Judge, the same is concerned with Judicial Department and further that the 1st Respondent/Petitioner has been permitted to peruse/inspect this order and to that effect, a letter dated 28.04.2011 has been sent. Also, the 1st Respondent/Petitioner has informed that he has seen the order but not able to remember the date of inspection/perusal and also stated that the said order relates to Judiciary and more so, it is a judicial order and as such, he requires a copy of the same. For obtaining copy of the said order from the Court, through filing of a copy petition, the 1st Respondent/Petitioner is advised to obtain the same and accordingly, the case has been closed'.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Registrar General, High Court, Madras submits that the impugned order dated 22.05.2012 in Case No.11224/Enquiry/A/12 passed by the 2nd Respondent/Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Chennai is illegal and void ab initio and further, the same has been passed in violation of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the 2nd Respondent/Tamil Nadu Information Commission has passed the impugned order in Case No.11224/Enquiry/A/2012 dated 22.05.2012 without considering the fact that the information sought for by the 1st Respondent/Petitioner is barred by the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

5. Yet another submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the 2nd Respondent/Tamil Nadu Information Commission has gone wrong in accepting the plea of the 1st Respondent/Petitioner/Appellant that the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Criminal Contempt Petition is a judicial order and thus the party is entitled for copy of the order as per the High Court of Madras Appellate Side Rules, 1965.

6. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the 2nd Respondent/Tamil Nadu Information Commission has committed an error in entertaining an Appeal as the motive of the 1st Respondent/Petitioner is to hinder the administrative function of the Hon'ble High Court.

7. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the 2nd Respondent/ Tamil Nadu Information Commission has failed to appreciate a primordial fact that if frivolous petitions are entertained, then, the administration of any public authority much less the Petitioner/High Court, Madras would come to stand still and also that it would defeat the very purpose for which the Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted.

8. Although notice has been served on the 1st Respondent/ Petitioner/Appellant as early as on 24.11.2012, he has not appeared either in person or through counsel to contest the proceedings in the Writ Petition.

9. Conversely, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2nd Respondent/Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Chennai contends that the 1st Respondent/Petitioner, being a citizen, has a statutory right to obtain the informations sought for by him, through his letters dated 03.12.2010, 05.04.2011, 01.08.2011 and 18.08.2011 etc. addressed to the Public Information Officer of the Writ Petitioner/High Court. In this regard, the Learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd Respondent seeks in aid of the ingredients of Section 4 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which refers to 'Obligations of Public Authorities'.

10. According to the Learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd Respondent,