13 recognized public organizations, are required by the Registration Rules to submit such accounts to the Election Commission for the main purpose of transparency and accountability to the people and the electorate, and therefore, withholding such statements/accounts as third-party’s secret documents amounts to negating the purpose of both the Registration Rules and the RTI Act. He again submits that as soon as a political party submits its audited statements of accounts to the Election Commission, the same becomes a “public document” under section 74(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872. The RTI Act and the Rules made thereunder having not provided for obtaining opinion of political parties for supplying copy of the same to the petitioners; the impugned order is without jurisdiction. According to the provisions of section 9(8) of the RTI Act, the authority from which the information has been sought is not required to rely solely on the “opinion” of a third-party in taking its decision, and is required to have regard to such “opinion” if expressed, and to arrive at a decision in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, the refusal of the Election Commission to provide the audited statements on the pretext that the political parties concern have not provided an affirmative opinion is wholly in violation of the provisions of the said Act. He also submits that in passing the impugned decision/order, the respondent No.1 has acted in a mechanical way to deny the right of the people to information, and has, thus, acted in violation of the very legislation