Judgment Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of these two petitions moved under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 27.04.2007, and also order dated 2nd of April 2008 passed by Central Information Commission (for short C.I.C). (2) Heard the petitioner, present in person, and also learned counsel for the respondents. (3) Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a retired professor of Roorkee University (now known as Indian Institute of Technology). The petitioner sought certain informations by filing 26 applications under Right to Information Act 2005. The Public Information officer initially failed to supply the information but after the petitioner approached the first appellate authority under the Act, and said authority directed that Public Information Officer (for short P.I.O ) to supply the information, certain informations were made available to the petitioner. However, the petitioner remained unsatisfied and wanted all the information including the one contained in voluminous record. He filed second appeal before the respondent no.1 i.e Central Information Commission. The Central Information Commission vide impugned order dated 27th of April 2007 (copy of Annexure 8) to the writ petition, disposed of said appeal being satisfied with the explanation given by the respondent no. 3 & 4 for delay in making the information available. The C.I.C further found that there were certain queries made by the petitioner which do not come under “information” . However, still the C.I.C at the end of the impugned order dated 27th of April 2007, observed that the petitioner may approach to the commission again if he feels that the information is incomplete or inaccurate. It appears that the petitioner made a written representation by post to the C.I.C (copy of which is Annexure 9 to the petition). Said representation was replied vide another impugned order dated 2nd of April 2008 ( copy of Annexed 10 to the petition) rejecting said representation. (4) On behalf of respondent no.1 & 2, it is stated that there is no need to file any counter affidavit as the impugned orders are evident relating to the facts of the case. In the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.3 and 4 in substance it is stated that the petitioner wanted information, in respect of old matters and it took time to the answering the same. In the counter affidavit on behalf of respondent no.3 and 4 in substance it is stated that the petitioner wanted information, in respect of old matters and it took time to the answering the same. Regarding some of the informations it is stated that the record had already been weeded out. Regarding some of the matters it is mentioned that the record is voluminous and only inspection could have been allowed and which was allowed to the petitioner. But he did not avail the same. As to the vague information sought it was not possible for the authority to supply the same. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has reiterated the averments made in the petition. (5) Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this court finds that the petitioner has failed to show any illegality in the impugned orders. Right to Inform ation Act 2005, is a self contained Act. The petitioner sought certain informations under that Act and he was supplied certain informations. He was also allowed to inspect the certain other informations (voluminous one). He has availed the remedy provided under the Act. The orders passed by C.I.C do not show violation of any of the provision of Right to Information Act, 2005. Since the impugned orders are inconsonance with the provisions contained in the Act, this court does not find any ground to quash the orders. Therefore, both the writ petitions are dismissed.