15 most of the political parties expressed their opinion in negative in respect of disclosure and supplying of those reports to the petitioners; therefore, the Commission considering the opinion of those political parties, decided not to disclose and supply those information to the petitioners. He next submits that some of the political parties expressed their opinion in positive in respect of disclosure and supplying of those reports to the petitioners; therefore, the Commission acted according to their opinion and disclosed and supplied that information to the petitioners. He goes to argue that the Commission acted in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act and thereby committed no illegality. He further submits that section 7 of the RTI Act provides for the conditions when disclosure of information is not mandatory; and the condition of section 7 (d) of the said Act is more relevant to the present matter. On the other hand, the petitioners did not make out a case of larger public interest before the Election Commission or Information Commission as against the confidentiality pleaded by the political parties for non-disclosure of the relevant information as such the Election Commission or the Information Commission did not at all have the opportunity to consider any issue of public interest. He further argues that since the plea of confidentiality of the political parties has already been approved by the respondent No.1 the requirement of prior approval from the respondent No.1 under the