S.M. Subramaniam, J.

The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to direct the first respondent-Central Information Commission/Second Appellate Authority to pass separate order, imposing penalty on each and every complaint, after conducting the hearing meeting, as mentioned above, for the writ petitioner's willful denial of information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in his presence and also pass orders to the fourth respondent/Registrar (Administration)-cum-Central Public Information Officer, Madras High Court to provide information to the writ petitioner that the information requested by him and subsequently, pass orders to the second respondent/Secretary, Central Information Commission to grant and pay a sum of Rs. 5 crores to the writ petitioner as compensation for subjecting him to mental sufferings, humiliation and for gross violation of his rights.

2. The writ petitioner, appearing in person, articulated his grievances by stating that the questions/information asked by him under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 had not been answered properly. The party-in-person, who is a retired Professor from Collegiate Education and, who is able to represent his case properly, inform this Court that, he is aggrieved from and out of the actions of the respondents and the information’s sought for by the writ petitioner has not been provided in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

3. The writ petitioner contended that a 'reply' has been given by the respondents in certain applications. However, the 'answers' warranted were not given. In other words, it is stated that the reply given by the respondents cannot be equated with the answers, which all are useful for the writ petitioner to initiate all further actions against the irregularities and illegalities committed by the Administrative Authorities.

4. In this regard, the writ petitioner has enclosed certain applications submitted by him before the Public Information Officer, High Court of Madras. The writ petitioner-in-person contended that he approached the Central Information Commission also. The Central Information Commission initiated actions for imposing penalty under the provisions of the Act. However, the writ petitioner was not informed about the further process in spite of the complaint made by him against the Public Information Officer.

5. With these grievances, the writ petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition.

6. None appeared for the Central Information Commission-first and second respondents.

7. The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents 3 and 4/High Court of Madras, informed this Court that the writ petitioner had already submitted number of applications under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondents 3 and 4/Madras High Court have given reply in respect of the applications submitted by the writ petitioner. Even with reference to the present writ petition the writ petitioner himself enclosed the questions as well as the answers along with the typed set of papers filed in this writ petition. The writ petitioner is also fair enough and not suppressed any of those facts before this Court.

8. The learned counsel for respondents 3 and 4 contended that certain informations are protected under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Certain sundry informations and the File Notes cannot be supplied on account of the bar under the Act. This apart, certain informations are protected and the disputes raised in this regard are now pending consideration before the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, such protected informations cannot be furnished to the writ petitioner as per his applications. As far as possible, the informations sought for had already been furnished to the writ petitioner and therefore, there is no infirmity in respect of the actions taken by the respondents 3 and 4 with refere