M. Venugopal, J.

1. The Petitioner/Registrar General, High Court of Madras, Chennai, has focused the present Writ of Certiorari in calling for the records in Case No.18603-11 & 12498-12/Enquiry/A/2012, dated 17.05.2012 of the 2nd Respondent/Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Chennai and to quash the same.

2. The 2nd Respondent/Tamil Nadu Information Commission, Chennai, in Case No.18603-11 & 12498-12/Enquiry/A/2012, dated 17.05.2012, has passed an order inter alia observing that “the Petitioner has requested for the documents relating to the Writ Petitions in the Court. It has already been mentioned on numerous occasions about the decision of the Commission in regard to the receipt of documents and copies from the Court. However, it is evident that in this instance, the Public Authority (Writ Petitioner) has not furnished any information to the Petitioner (First Respondent/ Applicant). As per the Right to Information Act, the information sought for by the Petitioner (1st Respondent/Applicant) ought to have been furnished to him, within thirty days or he should have been informed the procedures/methods in receiving those information. In this matter, the Public Authority failed etc., and resultantly, directed the Writ Petitioner to supply the copies to the 1st Respondent, at free of cost, under Section 7(6) of the Act on or before 25.05.2012. Moreover, the 2nd Respondent/Tamil Nadu Information Commission has also directed the Writ petitioner to submit his explanation to it on or before 31.05.2012 as to why action should not be taken under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act for not furnishing the information.”

3. Challenging the impugned order dated 17.05.2012 in Case No.18603-11 & 12498-12/Enquiry/A/2012, passed by the Second Respondent/Tamil Nadu Information Commission, the Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner/Registrar General, High Court of Madras, submits that the 2nd Respondent/Tamil Nadu Information Commission failed to appreciate that the Application dated 23.12.2012, sent by the 1st Respondent/Applicant was similar to that of earlier Application, which was disposed of as per the statute.

4. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the 2nd Respondent/Tamil Nadu Information Commission was not correct in entertaining the Second Appeal, as the motive of the 1st Respondent/Petitioner was to hinder the administrative functions of this Court and passed the impugned order dated 17.05.2012, ignoring a vital fact that he had already obtained the information sought for by him. The stand taken on behalf of the Petitioner/Registrar General, High Court of Madras is that the 1st Respondent/Applicant was provided with the requisite information relating to the rules, in and by which the copies of documents sought for by him, could be obtained by the Assistant Public Information Officer, through communication dated 27.04.2011 and later, by means of another communication dated 01.12.2011 of the Appellate Authority itself. As such, it is otiose on the part of the 2nd Respondent/Tamil Nadu Information Commission, to issue a direction by means of an impugned order dated 17.05.2012, directing the Petitioner/High Court of Madras to furnish the copies of the documents and in fact, the said act of the 2nd Respondent/Tamil Nadu Information Commission, is an unwarranted one.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urges before this Court that the 2nd Respondent/Tamil Nadu Information Commission, had not issued notice to the concerned parties, pertaining to the proceedings in W.P.No.11597 of 1988 and W.P.No.12518 of 1994 and consequently, their objects/views have not been ascertained by the Commission, as required under Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

6. Yet another legal argument projected by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that in regard to the supply of copies of documents sought for by the 1st respondent/Applicant, this Court is governed by the Rules called “Rules of the High C