K. Ravichandrabaabu, J

1. The Public Information Officer (Registrar (Administration)), High Court, Madras is the writ petitioner. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi (first respondent herein), dated 23.1.2013, whereby the first respondent has directed the petitioner to furnish the information as sought for by the second respondent herein, insofar as six appeals are concerned. In respect of other 47 complaints are concerned, the first respondent-Commission directed the petitioner to send statement of particulars regarding those complaints.

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

The second respondent, a native of Puducherry, has made several applications/queries under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTI Act') to the Madras High Court, seeking information on various aspects. Out of several such applications/queries made by the second respondent, the first respondent has directed the petitioner to furnish the information as sought for by the second respondent in respect of the following six applications/queries:

(i) Details of action taken on his complaint, dated 1.6.2011 against the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and the details of enquiry conducted thereon;

(ii) Details of recruitment rules for the post of Registrar General of High Court, details of constitution of Selection Committee, recommendation made by individual Judges and other information regarding the selection of various individuals as Registrar Generals;

(iii) Details of action taken on earlier application, dated 31.10.2011 regarding the appointment and selection of Registrar General;

(iv) Copies of several petitions/appeals filed by the second respondent and also the file notings made therein;

(v) Copy of earlier complaint, dated 10.12.2011 filed by the second respondent against the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and the action taken thereon;

(vi) Information as to what action taken regarding the complaint filed by the second respondent, dated 20.9.2011 against inclusion of one Ms.Geetha Ramaseshan as Advocate in Crl.O.P.No.18804 of 2010 and the file notings thereon.

3. Out of those six queries made by the second respondent, queries (i) and (v) relate to the complaint made by the second respondent against the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. Queries (ii) and (iii) relate to the selection and appointment of Registrar General of High Court.

4. Insofar as query (i) is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that on receipt of the application, dated 5.12.2011 from the second respondent, the petitioner, through communication, dated 20.1.2012, asked the second respondent to come for inspection of necessary files. It is the further case of the petitioner that though the inspection was fixed on 30.1.2012, the second respondent sought time and accordingly, on 1.2.2012, the second respondent was permitted to peruse the files regarding the action taken. However, in the meantime, the second respondent filed an appeal to the Registrar General of High Court complaining non-furnishing of information and the said appeal was dismissed by the Registrar General on 6.11.2012 by relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in S.L.P.No.27734 of 2012.

5. Insofar as query (v) is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent was already informed through communication, dated 28.3.2012 that his complaint, dated 10.12.2011 has been closed. However, the second respondent filed appeal to the Registrar General of this Court, wherein, an order came to be passed on 12.6.2012, holding that nothing further was to be done in this matter, as the second respondent was already informed on 28.3.2012 itself about the closing of his complaint, dated 10.12.2011.

6. Insofar as query (ii) is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that the request of the second respondent was rejected by the p