ORDER The background of the case is that the present appellant Shri K.K. Arora, Advocate had submitted a representation dated 1.3.2011 to the District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar in relation to a Civil Suit No. 330/2008 alleging derogatory and arbitrary attitude of a Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar. Subsequently he moved an application on 12.7.2011 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking certified copies of the following documents :- (a) Representation dated 1.3.2011. (b) Affidavits dated 28.5.2011 and Annexures as filed in support of the aforesaid representation. (c) Reply/comments, if any, of the concerned Honble CJJD in response thereto. (d) All the other documents in connection therewith. 2. The PIO allowed the information except in respect of clause-C of the RTI application dated 12.7.2011. Under this clause, the information-seeker had sought a copy of the reply/comments, if any, of the concerned Honble Civil Judge (Jr. Division) in response to his complaint. The PIO conveyed that this information cannot be supplied due to the reasons listed below :- (1) As per rule 3(3), Chapter 17 of High Court Rules and Orders, Volume IV R/W Rule 5 of Punjab Subordinate Courts (Rights to Information) Rules, 2007 framed by the Honble High Court vide Correction Slip No. 142/Rules/II-D-4 dated 14.8.2007 "official letters shall be treated as privileged documents and copies thereof shall not be ordinarily granted." As such, comments of the officer/official letters cannot be supplied under the rules ibid. 3. Mr. Arora preferred First Appeal under Section 19 of the Act ibid, but the appeal was dismissed upholding the decision of the PIO. The First Appellate authority-cum-District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar observed in his order that the PIO vide letter No. 6641 dated 1.8.2011 has supplied information containing 48 pages relating to:- (i) On receipt of representation dated 1.3.2011, the comments of the concerned Presiding Officer were obtained and the matter is under consideration. (ii) Copy of representation dated 1.3.2011. (iii) Copy of affidavits dated 28.5.2011 alongwith copies of Annexures. (ii) Copy of representation dated 1.3.2011. (iii) Copy of affidavits dated 28.5.2011 alongwith copies of Annexures. Regarding the remaining information, the First Appellate Authority observed that the Public Information Officer has informed the applicant that as per rule 3(3), Chapter 17 of High Court Rules and Orders, Volume IV R/W rule 5 of Punjab Subordinate Courts (Right to Information) Rules, 2007 framed by the Honble High Court vide Correction Slip No. 142/Rules/II-D.4 dated 14.8.2007: "Official letters shall be treated as privileged documents and copies thereof shall not be ordinarily granted." As such the First Appellate Authority held that , comments of the officer/official letters cannot be supplied under the rules ibid. Additionally, the appellate authority also held that the information-seeker did not affix Court Fee of Rs. 100/- on the appeal filed by him. 4. Aggrieved by the decisions of the PIO and the First Appellate Authority, the information-seeker approached the State Information Commission, Punjab, on 13.9.2011. 5. The plea of the appellant is that the RTI Act was enacted by Parliament to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority and unless any particular information is exempt under any of the clause of Section 8 of the Act ibid, the information cannot be denied. Specific attention was drawn to the proviso to Section 8(1) of the Act ibid which states that "provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person". It was pleaded that the PIO or First Appellate Authority have not relied on any provision of Section 8 (1) of the Act ibid or sought any exemption on the basis of any provisions of the RTI Act. When allegations against a public servant are of a serious nature, such information should invariably be allowed. Attention was drawn to the provisions of Section 24 under which certain organizations could be exempted from the purview of the RTI Act. However, even this blanket exemption to the specified organizations under Section 24 is not available if allegations of corruption or Human Rights Violation are involved. Attention was drawn to the provisions of Section 24 under which certain organizations could be exempted from the purview of the RTI Act. However, even this blanket exemption to the specified organizations under Section 24 is not available if allegations of corruption or Human Rights Violation are involved. Relying on the authority of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 10067/2010 decided on 21.1.2011 (First Appellate Authority was the CIC) in 2011 (3) RCR (Civil)164, it was argued that he information pertaining to allegation of Corruption and Human Rights Violation are not covered under any exemptions given in the RTI Act . In any case, it was pleaded that the offices of the Judges are not exempt under Section 24 of the Act ibid. Therefore, information sought on allegations./complaints against public servants of corruption can never be excluded from the public purview. The information-seeker also relied on Madras High Courts decision in Secretary to Government , Home Department, Rehabilitation and Excise Department Chennai v. Suresh Basis (2010 (8)MLJ-927). Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in 2012(1) RCR (Civil), Chief Information Commissioner v. State of Manipur wherein it was held that the Right to Information is a fundamental right and that the Right to Information Act was enacted to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority in order to strengthen the core constitutes of the democratic republic. 6. Lastly, it was argued that Section 22 of the Act ibid has an over-riding effect, notwithstanding any thing inconsistent in any other law for the time being in force or in any instructions having effect by virtue of any law other than the Right to Information Act, 2005. It was pleaded that reliance on Chapter 17 of the High Court Rules and Orders is misplaced. Attention was drawn to Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil and Criminal Courts and Supplies of copies, record Rules 1965 and it was argued that this Rule has no relevance to the statutory provisions of the Act ibid. In any case, Rule 3 of the Rules ibid does not grant any blanket exemption from disclosures. Attention was drawn to Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil and Criminal Courts and Supplies of copies, record Rules 1965 and it was argued that this Rule has no relevance to the statutory provisions of the Act ibid. In any case, Rule 3 of the Rules ibid does not grant any blanket exemption from disclosures. The First line of the rule states that copies shall not "ordinarily" be granted, but should it be necessary to grant a copy of a letter or an extract of a letter received by subordinate, reference shall be made to the superior officers for permission to grant copy thereof. Therefore, the PIO should have made a reference to the higher authorities and requested for permission to give information. 7. The respondent on the other hand, reiterated its plea made in written submissions and relied on Rule 3 sub clause-3 of Chapter 17 of the Rules and Order Volume IV R/W Rule 5 of the Punjab Subordinate Courts Right to Information Rules framed by the Honble High Court Correction slip No. 142/Rules-II-D.4 dated 14.8.2007 which states that "official letter shall be treated as privilege documents and copies thereof shall not ordinarily be granted". It was pleaded that there is no merit in the appeal as the decision of the PIO and the First Appellate Authority are based on the mandatory Rules and therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. 8. We have heard the parties and gone through the record. The law is well settled that provisions of an Act of legislature are superior to any rules and regulations which an authority may notify as an exercise in subordinate legislation. The Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6454/2011 titled as Central Board of Secondary Education v. Adityabandopadhaya arising out of SLP No. 7526/2009 decided on 9.8.2011, while considering the issue of conflict between the rules and regulations by the University and the provisions of the RTI Act held (Para 18) "Section 22 of the RTI Act provides that the provisions of said Act will have affect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any law for the time being in force. Therefore, the provisions of the Right to Information Act will prevail over the provisions of the bye- laws/rules of the examining bodies in regard to examination. Therefore, the provisions of the Right to Information Act will prevail over the provisions of the bye- laws/rules of the examining bodies in regard to examination. As a result, unless the examining body is able to demonstrate that the answer-books fall under the exempt category of information described under (e) of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, the examining body will be bound to provide access to an examinee to inspect and take copies of his evaluated answer books even if such inspection or taking copies is barred under rules/bye-laws of the examining body governing the examination". The factual position in the present appeal case before us is similar to the facts of CBSE v. Aditybandopadhayas case, in so far as in the present appeal, the respondent-PIO and the District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar have denied access to information relying on the rules notified by the High Court. The rules in so far as these state that the official letter shall be treated as privileged document and copies thereof shall not be ordinarily granted, are in conflict with the transparency law. The RTI Act does not recognize any document as privileged. Access to any material information held by any public authority can only be withheld on the grounds of exemptions listed under Section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act or if the concerned public authority has been exempted from the purview of the RTI Act by the concerned Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 24. The Right of a citizen to access any information held by or under the control of any public authority is to be read in harmony with the exemptions incorporated in the RTI Act. 9. It is also worth noting that the rule relied upon by the respondent does not impose a blanket ban on disclosure of information. It only states that official letters are to be ordinarily treated as privileged documents. However, the rules go on to say that the subordinate officials will move the senior authorities in case such privileged documents are to be disclosed. If a citizen seeks information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 it is not an ordinary situation for the reason that RTI Act does treat any document as privileged documents. However, the rules go on to say that the subordinate officials will move the senior authorities in case such privileged documents are to be disclosed. If a citizen seeks information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 it is not an ordinary situation for the reason that RTI Act does treat any document as privileged documents. Access to the information is under a statute and there are plethora of authorities of the Apex Court holding that this right is a fundamental right. This right can only be taken away in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. Since the respondent has not relied on any provisions of the RTI Act to justify the denial of information, we have no hesitation in holding that the orders of the PIO/First Appellate Authority are not in accordance with the provisions of the Act ibid. 10. In view of the above observation, we accept the appeal and set-aside the order of the First Appellate Authority and PIO with the directions that information denied to the appellant in respect of clause-c of his RTI application dated 12.7.2011 shall be furnished to him by observing the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, within 15 days of this order. 11. With the above direction, the appeal case is closed. .