ORDER 1. Since this Court has the benefit of recent declaration of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and another Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & others reported in (2011) 8 SCC, 497, the High Court is saved from a detailed adjudication which was required to be made on the various submissions tendered on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The background under which the present writ application came to be filed is that certain information was sought for by respondent no. 3 from the petitioner who happened to be the Public Information Officer Incharge and duly declared as such. There is no dispute that information had been tendered from time to time but the grievance sought to be raised in the present writ application is that the Chief Information Commissioner or the Members exceeded their jurisdiction by trying to solve the dispute or pressing for a decision or the manner in which a decision was required to be taken with regard to the interest of private respondent no. 3 in matters of grant of certain benefit in service. 3. After having had a look at the relevant paragraphs of the decision rendered in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education (Supra) , specially paragraphs 13, 63, 65 and 67, which are re-produced here-in-below, the Court does veer towards the fact that it was none of the business of the State Information Commission to give direction to take decision in a particular manner with regard to the relief which private respondent was looking for. “13. Chapter II of the Act containing Sections 3 to 11 deals with the right to information and obligations of public authorities. Section 3 provides for the right to information and reads thus : “Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information.” This section makes it clear that the RTI Act gives a right to a citizen to only access information, but not to seek any consequential relief based on such information. 63. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of “information” and “right to information” under clauses (f) and (j) of Section 2 of the Act. 63. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of “information” and “right to information” under clauses (f) and (j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide “advice” or “opinion” to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any “opinion” or “advice” to an applicant. The reference to “opinion” or “advice” in the definition of “information” in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act. 65. The power under Section 19(8) of the Act, however, does not extend to requiring a public authority to take any steps which are not required or contemplated to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act or to issue directions beyond the provisions of the Act. 65. The power under Section 19(8) of the Act, however, does not extend to requiring a public authority to take any steps which are not required or contemplated to secure compliance with the provisions of the Act or to issue directions beyond the provisions of the Act. The power under Section 19(8) of the Act is intended to be used by the Commissions to ensure compliance with the Act, in particular ensure that every public authority maintains its records duly catalogued and indexed in the manner and in the form which facilitates the right to information and ensure that the records are computerized, as required under clause (a) of Section 4(1) of the Act; and to ensure that the information enumerated in clauses (b) and (c) of Section 4(1) of the Act are published and disseminated, and are periodically updated as provided in sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 4 of the Act. If the “information” enumerated in clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act are effectively disseminated (by publications in print and on websites and other effective means), apart from providing transparency and accountability, citizens will be able to access relevant information and avoid unnecessary applications for information under the Act. 67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (un-related to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counterproductive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their regular duty. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising “information furnishing” at the cost of their normal and regular duties. 4. Mr. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising “information furnishing” at the cost of their normal and regular duties. 4. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned counsel representing the State Information Commission also to some extent accepts the legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and to that extent he cannot disagree with the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court on this aspect. He, however, has tried to justify the order of the Commissioner as also the object and purpose for which the information was sought to be achieved otherwise the act of the applicant would have failed. 5. In the opinion of this Court, if the Information Officer or the designated authority had furnished information so demanded without any suppression or evasion, then the object and the purpose of the Act had been met. It is none of the business of the State Information Commission to achieve the object, purpose or finding fault in the manner in which such a decision has been taken. 6. The Court is satisfied that there was no occasion for the State Information Commission to pass any order specially the orders dated 10.10.2007, 7.11.2007 and 28.11.2007. Those orders are quashed. This writ application is allowed. There may not be any occasion for the petitioner to pay any compensation or fine for non compliance in relation to complaint case no. 1485/07-08.