23 Z_¨ cÖ`vbKvix Kg©KZ©v wbe©vPb Kwgkb mwPevjq Abywjwc: W. ew`Dj Avjg gRyg`vi wcZv- i½y wgqv gRyg`vi 12/2, BKevj †ivW,‡gvnv¤§`cyi, XvKv|Ó Thereafter, the petitioner No.1 further filed a complaint in Form ‘A’ to the respondent No.1-Information Commission on 01.06.2014 (Annexure-M) stating that the information sought by him were already in the possession of the respondent No.2-Election Commission, who could have provided the information to him as an “Authority” by virtue of section 2(b)(i) of the RTI Act without recourse to any third party. He further stated that the information sought did not fall within the ambit of section 7 of the RTI Act; the objective of rule 9(b) of the Registration Rules, 2008 was to establish transparency and accountability of the registered political parties, which is also the objective of the RTI Act, and that the information sought by him were not in the nature of “secret information” referred to in section 9(8) of the RTI Act. In the said 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 statement of accounts submitted by the registered political parties; (c) the respondent No. 1 should direct the Election Commission to publish all information provided by the