7 in relation to the remaining political parties since its communication dated 23.12.2013. In the said review application, the petitioner No.1 also stated that he was of the view that the decision of the respondent No.1-Commission laying down a requirement of consent from the “third-parties” was not correct, as the information sought were “public information”, to which every citizen is entitled under section 4 of the RTI Act; as such, he sought review of the decision dated 22.10.2013 (Annexure-K). On receipt thereof, the respondent No.1 issued a letter dated 13.04.2014 concluding that there was no scope under the RTI Act to review a decision issued by the Information Commission and accordingly, advising the petitioner No.1 to file a complaint in prescribed Form ‘A’ in case of any dissatisfaction (Annexure L). Pursuant thereto, he filed a further complaint in Form ‘A’ on 01.06.2014 to the respondent No. 1 narrating the facts leading up to the 2nd complaint stating, inter alia, that the information sought by him were already in the possession of the respondent No. 2, who could have provided the information to him as an “Authority” by virtue of the RTI Act without recourse to any third-party. In the complaint he prayed that: (a) the respondent No.1 should direct the Election Commission to provide the requested information to him from the information preserved by the Commission itself without seeking opinion from any third-party; (b) the respondent No.1 should declare that section 9(8) of RTI Act does not apply to the statements of accounts submitted by the registered political parties; (c) the respondent No. 1 should direct the Election Commission to publish all