JUDGMENT Subhasis Talapatra, J. 1. By order dated 14.09.2009 passed in Appeal No. MIC/Appeal/67/2009/43 by the Meghalaya Information Commission, hereinafter the Commission in short directed the Joint Chief Electoral Officer, Meghalaya, Shillong, the Public Information Officer to disclose the information sought by Mr. John F. Kharshiing, appellant in the proceeding before the Commission and respondent No. 2 herein by furnishing photocopies of Form 17A (voters registers) utilized during the Lok Sabha Election, 2009 for 96 polling stations in Jaintia Hills District as per list furnished by the respondent No. 2 within a period of 20(twenty) days from the date of the order with intimation to the Commission. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 14.09.2009 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) the Chief Electoral Officer, Meghalaya, Shillong, petitioner No. 1 and the Joint Chief Electoral Officer, Meghalaya, Shillong, the petitioner No. 2 filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking judicial review of the said order. This Court by order dated 30.09.2009 passed in Misc. Case No. 435(SH) of 2009 suspended the operation of the impugned order dated 14.09.2009 till disposal of the petition. 2. Genesis of the case is noted: The petition dated 05.06.2009(Annexure-2 to the writ petition) seeking disclosure by furnishing photocopies of Form 17A (voters registers) utilized during the Parliamentary (Lok Sabha) Election, 2009 for the 96 polling stations in Jaintia Hills District as per the list attached to the said petition at Annexures 1 and 2 and to furnish a list of registered Polling Agents set up by the contesting candidates for the Shillong-1 Parliamentary Constituency during said Election, 2009, a copy of the said petition (Annexure-2) was forwarded to the Election Commission of India by a letter under Memo No. EL.87/2006/258-A dated 09.06.2009 seeking appropriate direction from the said Election Commission. In response to the said letter dated 09.06.2003 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) the Election Commission of India, the Election Commission in short directed the writ petitioner No. 1 by their letter No. 30/MEG/2009/4043 dated 06.07.2009 that the provision under Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 is amply clear and explicit Form 17A cannot be opened except under the order of a competent Court. Further, with regard to the list of Polling Agents, there is no such restriction on the supply of list of Polling Agents as it is not covered by the said rule. Further, with regard to the list of Polling Agents, there is no such restriction on the supply of list of Polling Agents as it is not covered by the said rule. In accordance with the direction as contained in the letter dated 06.07.2009 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), the writ petitioner No. 2 disclosed the information in the form of a list of Polling Agents to the respondent No. 2 as per the requisition by a forwarding letter under No. EL.87/2006/459 dated 15.07.2009 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition). The respondent No. 2 as it appears from the impugned order dated 14.09.2009 preferred an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the first appellate authority, the Chief Electoral Officer, Government of Meghalaya, the writ petitioner No. 1 herein. On 20.07.2009 the said First Appellate Authority by the order No. EL.87/2006/471 dated 28.07.2009 affirmed the decision of the Public Information Officer i.e. writ petitioner No. 2 herein. 3. As consequent upon the said decision of the first appellate authority dated 28.07.2009, the respondent No. 2 filed a second appeal under Section 19(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, in the Commission challenging the said decisions of the Public Information Officer and the first appellate authority stating that the said orders have been passed in contrast to the provisions of Section 22 of the Right to Information Act, hereinafter RTI Act The Commission asked in the statement from the Public Information Officer and the first appellate authority as to why the impugned orders would not be set aside and a penalty at the rate of Rs.250/- per day should not be imposed upon the Public Information Officer for his delay in disclosing the information as well after causing a delay of 10(ten) days. From the statement as submitted by the writ petitioner No. 2 it surfaced that in view of the provisions of Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, the clearance was not given by the Election Commission of India and for that reason he could not furnish the information relating to Form 17A (voters registers) as requested by the appellant, the respondent No. 2 herein. The writ petitioner No. 2 also explained reasons for delay in furnishing the part of the information stating that he was not officiating from 04.07.2009 to 14.07.2009 as he was sick and availed leave on medical ground for 11 days. The Commission on taking into consideration the grounds taken in the memorandum of appeal, records and statements as filed by the writ petitioner No. 2 formulated two issues, viz. (1) Whether information relating to Form 17A (voters registers) of the M.P. Lok Sabha Election should be furnished to the appellant as requested by him? (2) Whether the Public Information Officer is liable for penalty if so the amount thereof? The Commission observed while analyzing the rival contentions that the Public Information Officer (PIO) did not deny existence of the information and also the fact that he holds it. His only ground for denial of the information is absence of the right to access as created by Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 which clearly states that Form 17 A cannot be opened except under the order of a competent Court and also the fact that Election Commission on India by their letter dated 06.07.2009 reiterated the operation of the said Rule. The information contained in Form 17A (voters registers) of the Lok Sabha Election does not form part of the exemptions specified under Sections 8 and 9 of the RTI Act and prima facie, the information cannot be denied to the appellant. The law makers in their wisdom recognized the possibility of provisions in other laws or rules framed under them including the Official Secrets Act, 1923, which may hinder smooth operation of the RTI Act, 2005, and in consideration thereof mandated Section 22 of the Act as under: The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Officer Secrets Act, 1923 (Act of 1923), and any other law for the time, being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. The Commission elaborated further that a plain reading of the said provision of law gives a clear indication of the intention of the legislators that in the event of any other law including the Official Secrets Act or Rules or Orders, or procedures standing on the way of operation of the RTI Act, 2005 shall have over-riding effect. The Commission elaborated further that a plain reading of the said provision of law gives a clear indication of the intention of the legislators that in the event of any other law including the Official Secrets Act or Rules or Orders, or procedures standing on the way of operation of the RTI Act, 2005 shall have over-riding effect. The election process is attended by the eminent public interest and therefore, according to the Commission any activities undertaken in that process lies within the public domain. The information which has been denied viz., Form 17A (voters registers) is part of the electoral process. The Form contains an information on the names and signatures of the citizens who cast their votes during the concerned election. This Form has been mandated by the statute with a view to ensure transparency and integrity of the electoral process. Withholding of the required information from the public and more so from the candidates who contested the election can only be viewed as an act of obsolescence under the RTI regime. The Commission therefore, observed that existence of such rules as quoted by the respondent P.I.O. and confirmed by first appellate authority cannot be a valid ground for denial of the information to the appellant The Commission thereby decided that the information sought by the appellant viz. photocopy of Form 17A (voters registers) utilized during the Lok Sabha Election. 2009 for 96 Polling Stations in Jaintia Hills District as per list furnished by the appellant the respondent No. 2 herein shall be furnished to him in full within 20 days from the date of this order with intimation to the Commission. However, the Commission did not impose any penalty having been satisfied with the explanation as furnished by the writ petitioner No. 2 herein. The writ petitioner while questioning the legality of the impugned order as passed by the Commission pleaded that they are discharging their duties as the Chief Electoral Officer and Joint Chief Electoral Officer under the superintendence and control of the Election Commission of India which is vested with the powers of conducting election to the Parliament of India, the State legislatures and the election to the Office of the President and the Vice- President of India under Article 324 of Constitution. The Representation of People Act, 1951 and Rules framed thereunder, including the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 provide for the statutory frame work for conduct of the election. The Representation of the People Act, 1951, hereinafter the R.P. Act, was amended to provide for the use of Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) for recording and counting votes of the Parliamentary and the Assembly elections. In 1992 the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 was amended and the Chapter II consisting of Rule 49A to Rules 49X was inserted which provided the procedure to be adopted in the matter of voting of the EVMs. Rule 49L provides for the electoral roll number of the electors and for obtaining signatures of the voters in a register of voters in Form 17A. Rule 49U provides that after the polls the Presiding Officer shall seal the packet containing register of voters in Form 17A. Rule 93(1)(dd) provides that the packet containing registers of the voters in Form 17A shall not be opened and their contents shall not be inspected by, or produced before any person or authority except under the order of a competent Court. In view of the provisions of Rule 93, the copies of the registers of voters in Form 17A cannot be opened or inspected or produced before any person or authority. 4. The petitioner further pleaded that as per the direction as contained in the handbook of the Returning Officers, all papers including registers of voters in Form 17A are to be sealed with the secret seal of the Election Commission and are to be kept under double lock in safe custody of the District Election Officer and thereafter of the Treasury. These secret seals are dispatched and are presently in the custody of the Election Commission of India. For purpose of elucidation, the relevant part of the handbook (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is required to be extracted hereunder: C-SEALING OF OTHER ELECTION PAPERS FOR ENSURING SAFE CUSTODY 34.1 Apart from the voting machine, there are several other important election papers, which require to be sealed and secured for safe custody and storage. For purpose of elucidation, the relevant part of the handbook (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is required to be extracted hereunder: C-SEALING OF OTHER ELECTION PAPERS FOR ENSURING SAFE CUSTODY 34.1 Apart from the voting machine, there are several other important election papers, which require to be sealed and secured for safe custody and storage. Under Rule 93(1) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, the packets of election papers specified therein shall not be opened and their contents shall not be inspected by, or produced before, any person or authority except under the order of a competent Court Special care has thus to be taken for the safe custody of these papers. These papers are as follows where voting machines are used:- (i) The packets of Registers of Voters in Form 17A, including the voter slips. (ii) The packets of unused postal ballot papers with counterfoils attached thereto; (iii) The packets of used postal ballot papers whether valid, or rejected (including the packets in which covers containing postal ballot papers received late are kept); (iv) The packets of the counterfoils of used postal ballot papers; (v) The packets of used and unused tendered ballot papers; (vi) The packets of unused (surplus) ballot papers (printed for display on ballot units and for use as tendered ballot papers); (vii) The packets of the marked copies of the electoral roll; and (viii) The packets of the declarations by electors and the attestation of their signatures. 34.2 In view of the important nature of these election papers, the Commission has directed that these papers should also be sealed with the secret seal of the Commission. 34.3 The papers mentioned at items (iii) and (viii) above shall be made into packets at the time of counting. Such packets shall be sealed by you with your own seat immediately after the counting of the votes is over and with special secret seal, which will be supplied by the Commission for the election for each constituency. The secret seal will be in addition to the seals, if any, put on these packets by such of the candidates, their election agents or counting agents, as may desire to affix their seals thereon. You should point out to the candidates or their agents present that it is in their own interest to affix their seals on these packets to avoid any possibility of tampering with these packets. You should point out to the candidates or their agents present that it is in their own interest to affix their seals on these packets to avoid any possibility of tampering with these packets. They may also be permitted to note the number of the Commission's secret seal used. 34.4 The packets of papers mentioned at items (i), (v) and (vii) in Para 34.1 above will be received from the Presiding Officers of the polling stations in duly sealed packets. Though, these packets are not required for any purpose at the time of counting of votes, each of them should be immediately sealed with the secret seal of the Commission as soon as counting of votes is over and placed in steel trunk(s). 34.5 You should put a responsible Officer-in-Charge for the supervision of the sealing of all packets. Otherwise, there is possibility of important election papers going astray which would create complications and contusion if and when a competent Court orders the production of these papers. 34.6 Each steel trunk shall be locked with two locks and each lock shall be sealed. You should ensure that the secret seal of the Commission is put on packets only and not on any of the locks of the steel trunk or trunks. DRAWING UP OF PROCEEDINGS 35.1 After the sealing of the voting machines and election papers at the counting place after the counting of votes, you should draw up proceedings mentioning therein:-- (i) The full particulars of the candidates/agents present in the counting hall; (ii) The fact that they were asked to affix their seals on the voting machines and packets of election paper, if they so desired; and (iii) The particulars of persons who had affixed their seals on the voting machines and packets and the particulars of those persons who had refused to do so. 35.2 Then, you should sign the proceedings and obtain on it the signatures of such of the candidates/agents as are present and willing to sign. The proceedings should be put inside an envelope which should be sealed and the sealed envelope be kept along with the packets of election papers. 35.2 Then, you should sign the proceedings and obtain on it the signatures of such of the candidates/agents as are present and willing to sign. The proceedings should be put inside an envelope which should be sealed and the sealed envelope be kept along with the packets of election papers. SAFE CUSTODY OF ELECTION RECORDS BY DISTRICTS ELECTION OFFICER 36.1 Immediately after the declaration of result of the election, on the same day and, in any case not later than the noon of the following day, all the voting machines and the sealed trunks(s) containing the packets mentioned in Para 34.1 should be dispatched to the District Election Officer at his headquarters and on receipt of the voting machines and the sealed trunks(s) the District Election Officer should forthwith arrange to deposit them for safe custody in the Treasury/Sub-treasury under double lock. The key of one of the locks of each trunk will be entrusted to the Treasury Officer or an Officer in the Treasury/Sub-treasury authorized under the Treasury Code and the key of the other lock of each trunk should be kept by the District Election Officer himself or a senior officer nominated for the purpose by the District Election Officer/you. 36.2 The armed police guard posted at the room where the voting machines are stored before the counting of votes, should not be removed after the counting is over, but should continue to keep guard of the room till the transport of the voting machines and election records to the District Headquarters. As far as possible, the same guard should be used for protection during the transport also, and this fact should be mentioned in the logbook maintained by the guard. RETURN OF SECRET SEAL OF THE COMMISSION 37. After the packets required to be sealed with the secret seal of the Commission are sealed, the secret seal or seals should be put into a separate packet which should be sealed with the seals of such of the candidates, their election agents or counting agents, as may desire to affix their seals thereon. Thereafter, the packet containing the secret seal of the Commission should be returned immediately to the Commission by registered insured post and in any case not later than 24 hours after the counting of the votes is completed. Thereafter, the packet containing the secret seal of the Commission should be returned immediately to the Commission by registered insured post and in any case not later than 24 hours after the counting of the votes is completed. If more than one seal had been supplied, the name of the constituency and the number of the seal that was used should be indicated. The respondent No. 2 was one of the candidates in the election to the Lok Sabha held in 2009 for Shillong-1 Parliamentary Constituency who filed the said petition dated 05.06.2009 seeking the information as stated and the writ petitioner No. 2 on having necessary instruction from the Election Commission of India disclosed the list of the Polling Agents set up by the candidates for Shillong-1 Parliamentary constituency during the said election of 2009 but did not admittedly disclose or furnish the photocopies of Form 17A (voters registers) utilized during the Lok Sabha M.P. Election, 2009 for the 96 polling stations in the Jaintia Hills District as per the list attached as Annexures 1 and 2 of the said petition dated 5.6.2009, in view of the provisions as laid down in Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and for having no approval from the Election Commission of India as stated. 5. The solitary question that is called upon for consideration in this writ petition is that whether the decision of the writ petitioner No. 2 as the Public Information Officer as communicated by the letter dated 15.07.2009 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) is valid in the eye of law or in the other way whether the impugned order as passed by the Commission would legally sustain in law. Mr. H. S. Thangkhiew, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners emphatically submitted that the Commission failed to appreciate the provisions of Rules 92-93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Rule 93(1)(dd) provides that the packet containing registers of voters in Form 17A shall not be opened and their contents shall not be inspected by, or produced before, any person or authority except under the order of the competent Court. He further submitted that under Article 329(b) of the Constitution read with Part IV of the Representation of People Act, any challenge to any election can only be raised before the appropriate High Court after the election is complete. He further submitted that under Article 329(b) of the Constitution read with Part IV of the Representation of People Act, any challenge to any election can only be raised before the appropriate High Court after the election is complete. The grounds on which election can be declared void are given in Section 100(1) of the said R.P. Act. He continued to submit that during the trial the High Court, if considered necessary, may direct production or inspection of the said documents. The prohibition against inspection and production of the documents contained in Rule 93 is to ensure that relevant documents are available intact for inspection by the High Court as and when required. It also ensures that secrecy of voting is not violated by any unauthorized inspection/examination of the documents and the said process cannot be circumvented. The secrecy and confidentiality of the election process cannot be violated by invoking the provisions of the R.T.I. Act While responding to the finding of the Commission as regards the effect of Section 22 of the R.T.I. Act he submitted that the Commission has adopted a pedantic view and at the time of interpreting Section 22 of the RTI Act, he failed to appreciate the provision of Section 2(f) and 2(g) of the RTI Act where the "information" and "right to information" have been respectively defined. According to Mr. Thangkhiew, learned Senior counsel the information shall not include any material in any form as depicted in the R.T.I. Act which cannot be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force. Similarly, he emphasized that the right to information as defined means the right to information "accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority". With reference to those provisions, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted before this Court that the interpretation as adopted by the Commission is converse to the interpretation as provided in the RTI Act. In support of his contention, he relied a decision of the Delhi High Court dated 04.11.2009 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4715 of 2008 (Election Commission of India Vs. Central Information Commission & Ors.) where the said Hon'ble High Court held that: On legal interpretation of Section 2(j) of the R.T.I. Act, the information must be accessible and held by or under the control of any public authority. Central Information Commission & Ors.) where the said Hon'ble High Court held that: On legal interpretation of Section 2(j) of the R.T.I. Act, the information must be accessible and held by or under the control of any public authority. If this plea of the respondent No. 2 is to be accepted then no distinction can be made between queries relating to information which is not accessible to a public authority or accessible on satisfaction of pre-conditions. Further, all information including confidential information relating to the voting will be covered by the right to information and overridden in view of the Section 22 of the R.T.I. Act (whether the said queries are exempted under Section 8(1) of the R.T.I. is a separate aspect). Lastly, it is not as if an aggrieved party is remediless. In case election petition has been filed the competent Court can always direct furnishing of information on being satisfied that the parameters specified by the Supreme Court for furnishing of information and re-examination of data stored in the EVMs are met. 6. Mr. S.R. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the respondents while refuting the submissions as advanced by Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned Senior counsel stated that the interpretation as projected, if accepted that would demolish the very object of the legislation, the Right to Information Act, 2005. Mr. Sen placed heavy reliance on provision of Section 22 of the R.T.I. Act. On the springboard of Section 22 of the R.T.I. Act, Mr. S. R Sen continued to submit that when the said provisions have overriding effect on "any other law for the time being in force for any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act" includes the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and the Rules framed thereunder including the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. According to Mr. Sen the provision as contained in Rule 93(1)(dd) cannot hinder the operation of the RTI Act in view of the Section 22 of the said Act. According to Mr. Sen the provision as contained in Rule 93(1)(dd) cannot hinder the operation of the RTI Act in view of the Section 22 of the said Act. Though Rule 93(1)(dd) of the Conduct of Election Rule, 1961 provides that the packets containing registers in Form-17A shall not be opened and their contents shall not be inspected by or produced before, any person or authority except under the order of a competent Court, that would not preclude the operation of the RTI Act, meaning thereby those registers of voters will be subjected and cause disclosure under the RTI Act. Mr. S.R. Sen, learned counsel also seriously disagreed to the interpretation as advanced by the Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned Senior counsel and he referred to the provisions of Chapter 5 of the RTI Act, 2005 whereunder Powers and Functions of the Information Commission have been susceptibly laid down. Referring to the provision of Section 18(3) of the R.T.I. Act, Mr. Sen submits that the Central Information Commissioner or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall while inquiring into any matter under this section, have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of the following matters: (i) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things; (ii) requiring the discovery and inspection of documents; (iii) receiving evidence on affidavit; (iv) requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any Court or office; (v) issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents; and (vi) any other matters which may be prescribed. Further reference to sub-section 4 of the said Section has been made. It provides that: Notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other Act of Parliament or State Legislature, as the case may be, the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may during the inquiry of any complaint under this Act, examine any record to which this Act applies which is under the control of the public authority, and no such record may be withheld from it on any grounds. Referring to those provisions, Mr. Referring to those provisions, Mr. Sen submits with sufficient vehemence that the power of the State Information Commission so far the discovery and inspection of the documents are concerned is that of a competent civil Court which is enjoined with the powers of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Moreover, Section 4 of the RTI Act susceptibly provides that the State Information Commission during the inquiry of any complaint under this Act may examine any record to which this Act applies which is under the control of the public authority and no such record may be withheld from it on any grounds. While attending the submissions as made by Mr. Thangkhiew, learned Senior counsel as regard to the definition of Information and Right To Information, Mr. S.R. Sen, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that all materials in any form as depicted in Section 2(f) can be accessed by the public authority. He further stated that the interpretation that has been given by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner in regard to 'right to information' cannot be accepted by this Court as the right to information means the right to accessibility to information under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to inspection of work, documents, records, taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records, taking certified samples or material etc. Mr. Sen further submits that the Election Commission is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) as the Election Commission of India is the creature of the Constitution and as such the State Information Commission has correctly directed for the disclosure as stated and there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 7. For appreciation of the rival contentions two important sub-points required to be critically examined namely, whether the Section 22 has got the over ridding effect on the Rule 93(1)(dd) of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 emanating from the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 and whether any documents including Form 17A (voters registers) utilized during the election can be stated to be information within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and whether such information is accessible under the RTI Act which is not held by or under the control of any public authority for purpose of inspection, taking notes or taking certified samples or materials etc. Whether the State Commission is a competent Court within the meaning of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 or the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. Apart that this Court would also like to consider another aspect that whether the disclosure of information as sought by the respondent No. 2 is exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005 with special reference to Sub-section 1(e) of Section 8 of the RTI Act where it has been provided that information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information. 8. Mr. Thangkhiew, learned Senior counsel contended that the information as sought cannot be disclosed to the respondent No. 2 as it is not held by or under the control of the Election Commission as per the provision of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, R.P. Act in short and Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Election Rules in short. It is submitted that there is no conflict between the provisions of R.P. Act, the Election Rules and the provisions of RTI Act and as such the Information Commission has erred in directing disclosure of the information sought by the respondent No. 2. In 1989, the R.P. Act was amended to authorize use of the Electronic Voting Machines for polling and counting of votes. In the year 1992, the Election Rules were amended to incorporate provisions for EVMs, each EVM has a balloting unit and a control unit. Rules 93(dd)(e) and 94 of the Election Rules read as under: 93 **** (dd) the packets containing registers in Form-17A; (e) the packets of the declarations by electors and the attestation of their signatures; shall not be opened and their contents shall not be inspected by, or produced before, any person or authority except under the order of a competent Court. **** Rule 94: Disposal of election papers.- Subject to any direction to the contrary given by the Election Commission or by a competent Court or tribunal- (a) the packets of unused ballot papers shall be retained for a period of six months and shall thereafter be destroyed in such manner as the Election commission may direct; (aa) the voting machines kept in the custody of the district election officer under sub-rule (1A) of Rule 92 shall be retained intact for such period as the Election Commission may direct and shall not be used at any subsequent election without the previous approval of the Election Commission; (b) the other packets referred to in sub-rule (1) of Rule 93 shall be retained for a period of one year and shall thereafter be destroyed Provided that packets containing the counterfoils of used ballot papers shall not be destroyed except with the pervious approval of the Election Commission; (c) all other papers relating to the election shall be retained for such period as the Election Commission may direct. The object and purpose behind these rules is to maintain utmost secrecy and confidentiality and to protect the electorate from any reprisal or adverse consequences for voting in a particular manner or for a party/candidate. The object is that the said material should not be accessible unless the competent Court for valid reasons directs disclosure or inspection It is apparent from the provision that the Rules even did not authorize even the Election Commission to access and disclose information, data as stored. Opening of seals and inspection require order of a competent Court. In contrast to the said rule, Information Commission had given instruction as stated. The conjoint reading of the said Rules and the instructions would culminate in the following observations: (1) The words "orders of a competent Court" used in the Rules 92 and 93 is to be strictly construed and in the absence of any apparent ambiguity, what is expressly provided for it should not be imputed. Order of the competent Court is mandatory. (2) Secondly, even after the expiry of the period provided in the Rule or by an express direction of the Election Commission, the specified information, data or ballot papers cannot be disclosed without express order from a competent Court. Election Commission does not have power and authority to direct de-sealing for examination or verification of date. (2) Secondly, even after the expiry of the period provided in the Rule or by an express direction of the Election Commission, the specified information, data or ballot papers cannot be disclosed without express order from a competent Court. Election Commission does not have power and authority to direct de-sealing for examination or verification of date. This power is solely vested on the competent Court. 9. The Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 93 in various cases. In Ram Sewak Yadav Vs. Hussain K. Kidwai; reported in (1964) 6 SCR 238 , it has been observed that ballot papers may be inspected only under an order of a competent Court, but other documents are open for public inspection subject to certain conditions. An order for inspection should not be granted as a matter of course, on mere allegations and vague pleas made in the petition. In V.S. Achutanandan Vs. P.G. Francis & Anr.; reported in (2001) 3 SCC 81 , the Apex Court enunciated the Mowing principle: The Scheme of the rules prescribed in Part V of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 emphasises the point that the election petitioner who is a defeated candidate has ample opportunity to examine the voting papers before they are counted, and in case the objections raised by him or his election agent have been improperly overruled, he knows precisely the nature of the objections raised by him and the voting papers to which those objections related. It is in the light of this background that Section 83(1) of the Act has to be applied to the petitioners made for inspection of ballot boxes. Such an application must contain a concise statement of the material facts. The Apex Court further observes: The power to direct inspection and recount shall not be exercised by the Court to show indulgence to a petitioner who was indulging in a roving enquiry with a view to fish out material for declaring the election to be void. Delhi High Court in Election Commission (supra) has observed further that the right to information is subject to the provisions and exemptions under the RTI Act and, therefore, the legislature has used the words information accessible under this Act while defining right to information under Section 2(j). Delhi High Court in Election Commission (supra) has observed further that the right to information is subject to the provisions and exemptions under the RTI Act and, therefore, the legislature has used the words information accessible under this Act while defining right to information under Section 2(j). It further observed that the clause 'under the control of a public authority' as per their natural meaning, implies the right and power of the public authority to have access to the said information. The words "held by" in Section 2(j) in the context of the RTI Act will include not only information under the legal control of the public authority but also all information which is otherwise available with them. The public authority should have domain over the information or semblance of the right to the material which constitutes information. The words "held by" or under the control of an public authority are to be given a broad and wide meaning but at the same time cannot include information to which access is denied to a public authority itself under any other statutory enactment If there is a prohibition or bar under an enactment and the public authority is disabled and prevented access to material or information, the bar or prohibition is unless undone or erased by the RTI Act the public authority will be relieved of liabilities to disclose. Similarly, if there is a pre-condition before a public authority that it can access information under any other enactment, the said pre-condition should be satisfied. The right to information from a public authority requires the public authority's corresponding right to access to the said information. If there is an absolute or complete bar on the public authority's right to access information then such information cannot be supplied and if there is a partial bar or pre-condition, then the pre-condition should be satisfied before information is furnished. If the public authority is denied access or cannot have access due to any limitation or restriction under a statute, the material does not constitute 'information' under the RTI Act. Once the statutory precondition for access by the public authority to material/details is satisfied, the material/details are information within the meaning of Section 2(f) and a citizen has a right to access that information and have right to access information which is held by or under the control of any public authority. Once the statutory precondition for access by the public authority to material/details is satisfied, the material/details are information within the meaning of Section 2(f) and a citizen has a right to access that information and have right to access information which is held by or under the control of any public authority. Any other interpretation of the referred sections of the RTI Act will lead to incongruous and unacceptable results, with a statutory protection or prohibition in another enactment being nullified by filling an application under the RTI Act The legislature has, therefore, in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act carefully used the words "accessed by a public authority under any other law" as the condition precedent to the right to information or the information be held by or under the control of any public authority. Where a public authority is disabled till satisfaction of certain conditions or is prohibited from having access to any information, the provisions of the third enactments continue to apply and cannot be over ridden or over shadowed by the RTI Act. When any information is accessible to a public authority and is held or under its control, then the information must be furnished to the information-seeker under the RTI Act, even if there are conditions or prohibitions under any other statute already in force or under the Official Secrets Act that restricts or prohibits access to information to the public. Prohibition or conditions which do prevent a citizen from having access to information the non obstante clause in Section 22 of the RTI Act shall not come in rescue. When access to information by a public authority itself is prohibited or is accessible subject to conditions, until the prohibition is not obliterated and the preconditions are erased the right to information remains unanimated. Section 22 of the RTI act is a key which unlocks prohibitions/limitations on right of a citizen to access information, accessible to the public authority. It is not a key with the public authority that can be used to undo and erase prohibitions/limitations on the right of public authority to access information. There is no dispute that the Rule 93(dd)(e) of the Conduct of Election Rules does not provide any access to the public authority to unseal or access the Form 17A (voters registers) without the order of the competent Court. There is no dispute that the Rule 93(dd)(e) of the Conduct of Election Rules does not provide any access to the public authority to unseal or access the Form 17A (voters registers) without the order of the competent Court. The provisions of Section 22 of the RTI Act cannot be read so brazenly to erase the import and effects of Sections 2(f) and Section 2(j) and also of Section 8(1) of the R.T.I. Act. The operation of Section 22 is subject to the Section 2(f) and 2(j) which provide the definition of 'information' and 'right to information' and Section 8(1), which provides exemption from disclosure of information. The submission of Mr. S.R. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 that the Information Commission has got the equal power to exercise the powers as vested in civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the matters as catalogued in Section 18(3) of the RTI Act. His further contention that the Information Commission during the inquiry of any complaint under the RTI Act can examine any record to which this Act applies which is under the control of a public authority and no such record may be withheld with it on any ground. This provision and Section 4 and Section 18 of the RTI Act is not incongruous to Section 2(f) and 2(j) of the RTI Act as it clearly emphasises that right to examination by the Information Commission is restricted to any record to which the RTI Act applies and which is under the control of the public authority. Unless the record is within the control of the public authority or the records to which the R.T.I. Act applies those cannot be inspected or examined by the State Commission. It is well settled that giving certain powers to any authority from the Code of Civil Procedure as usually vested in a Civil Court does not ipso facto make that authority a competent Court as referred in Rule 93(dd) and (e) of the Election Rules for purpose of the Parliamentary (Lok Sabha) Election. The competent Court is the High Court and as such the State Commission cannot be for any purpose be treated as the competent Court within the meaning of the Rules 93(dd)(e) of the said Election Rules and as such the State Commission cannot direct disclosure. of the voters registers. Therefore what Mr. The competent Court is the High Court and as such the State Commission cannot be for any purpose be treated as the competent Court within the meaning of the Rules 93(dd)(e) of the said Election Rules and as such the State Commission cannot direct disclosure. of the voters registers. Therefore what Mr. S.R. Sen, learned counsel faintly indicated does not hold any force at all. When Section-22 of the RTI Act states of the overriding effects on any other Act it has to be understood in conjunction with the Section 2(f) and 2(j) and Section 8(1) of the RTI Act Therefore, the decision of the Delhi High Court has a strong persuasive value for determining this case. 10. As corollary thereto, this Court holds that the Form 17A (voters registers) cannot be accessed to by the public authority i.e. the Election Commission of India or its officers until the competent Court directs them to break seal and open the register for purpose of disclosure. So it is the competent Court which has only power to direct disclosure of the said voters registers and as such the voter registers cannot be accessed by the Election Commission or its officers and such register is also not therefore, held by or under the control of the said public authority. Hence the direction of the Information Commission is without jurisdiction and as such said direction is liable to be interfered with. 11. Another aspect of the matter is also required to be examined. Whether a legal fiduciary has been created by the Rule 93 of the conduct of Election Rules, 1961 with the Election Commission of India. Section 88 of the Indian Trust Act, 1882 describes of a fiduciary to protect certain interest. The fiduciary has been examined by the Apex Court in Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul & Anr. Vs. Pratima Maity & Ors.; reported in AIR 2003 SC 4351 where the Apex Court has held that a person standing in a fiduciary relation to another has a duty to protect the interest given to his care and the Court watches jealously all transactions between such persons so that the protector may not use his influence or the confidence to his advantage. But such aspect of the matter vis-a-vis RTI Act was considered by the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Arm Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. But such aspect of the matter vis-a-vis RTI Act was considered by the Supreme Court in Central Board of Secondary Education & Arm Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. reported in (2011) 3 SCC 497. 20. The term 'fiduciary' and 'fiduciary relationship' refer to different capacities and relationship, involving a common duty or obligation. 20.1) Black's Law Dictionary (7th Edition, Page 640) defines fiduciary relationship' thus: A relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on matters within the scope of the relationship. Fiduciary relationships - such as trustee-beneficiary, guardian - ward, agent-principal, and attorney-client-require the highest duty of care. Fiduciary relationships usually arise in one of four situations; (1) when one person' places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first, (2) when one person assumes control and responsibility over another, (3) when one person has a duty to act for or give advice to another on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or (4) when there is a specific relationship that has traditionally been recognized as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client or a stockbroker and a customer. 20.2) The American Restatements (Trusts and Agency) define 'fiduciary' as one whose intention is to act for the benefit of another as to matters relevant to the relation between them. The Corpus Juris Secundum (Vol. 36A page 381) attempts to define fiduciary thus: A general definition of the word which is sufficiently comprehensive to embrace all cases cannot well be given. The term is derived from the civil, or Roman, law. It connotes the idea of trust or confidence, contemplates good faith, rather than legal obligation, as the basis of the transaction, refers to the integrity, the fidelity, of the party trusted, rather than his credit or ability, as has been held to apply to all persons who occupy a position of peculiar confidence towards other, as to include those informal relations which exist when ever one party trusts and relies on another, as well as technical fiduciary relations. The word 'fiduciary', as a noun, means one who holds a thing in trust for another, a trustee, a person holding the character of a trustee, or a character analogous to that of a trustee, with respect to the trust and confidence involved in it and the scrupulous good faith and candor which it requires; a person having the duty, created by his undertaking, to act primarily for another's benefit in matters connected with such undertaking. Also more specifically, in a statue, a guardian, trustee, executor, administrator, receiver, conservator, or any person acting in any fiduciary capacity for any person, trust, or estate. Some examples of what, in particular connections, the term has been held to include and not to include are set out in the note. 20.3) Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition (Vol. 16A, Page-41) defines 'Fiducial relation' thus: There is a technical distinction between a 'fiducial relation' which is more correctly applicable to legal relationships between parties, such as guardian and ward administrator and heirs, and other similar relationships, and 'confidential relation' which includes the legal relationships, and also every other relationship wherein confidence is rightly reposed and is exercised. Generally, the term 'fiduciary' applies to any person who occupies a position of peculiar confidence towards another. It refers to integrity and fidelity. It contemplates fair dealing and good faith, rather than legal obligation, as-the basis of the transaction. The term includes those informal relations which exist whenever one party trusts and relies upon another, as well as technical fiduciary relations. 20.4) In Bristol and West Building Society v. Mathew 1998 Ch. 1 the term fiduciary was defined thus: A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence. The distinguishing obligation of a fiduciary is the obligation of loyalty.... A fiduciary must act in good faith; he must not make a profit out of his trust; he must not place himself in a position where his duty and his interest may conflict; he may not act for his own benefit or the benefit of a third person without the informed consent of his principal. A fiduciary must act in good faith; he must not make a profit out of his trust; he must not place himself in a position where his duty and his interest may conflict; he may not act for his own benefit or the benefit of a third person without the informed consent of his principal. 20.5) In Wolf v. Superior Court 2003 (107) California Appeals, 4th 25 the California Court of Appeals defined fiduciary relationship as under: Any relationship existing between the parties to the transaction where one of the parties is duty bound to act with utmost good faith for the benefit of the other parry. Such a relationship ordinarily arises where confidence is reposed by one person in the integrity of another, and in such a relation the party in whom the confidence is reposed, if he voluntarily accepts or assumes to accept the confidence, can take no advantage from his acts relating to the interests of the other party without the tatter's knowledge and consent. 12. The said Election Rules has created a fiduciary with the Election Commission of India vis-a-vis the competent Court and as such unless the competent Court which is the dominant person directs the Election Commission of India or its officers they cannot breach the relationship as entrusted by operation of the said Election Rule. This is a fiduciary relationship created by the legal provision and as such the Election Commission is exempted from disclosing the Form 17A (voters registers) to anyone unless the dominant person so directs. Moreover, it is seen in Delhi High Court judgment that safety of the voters is the paramount consideration for enacting the said Rule and again this aspect of the matter has also been taken care of by the 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act which provides that information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual be exempted from disclosure. Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act provides that any information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identity of the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement of security purposes shall be exempted from disclosure. 13. Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act provides that any information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identity of the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement of security purposes shall be exempted from disclosure. 13. In consideration of all these aspects as emerged from the statutory provisions and the sound legal doctrines, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 14.09.2009 as passed in Appeal No. MIC/Appeal/67/2009/43 by the Meghalaya Information Commission is liable to be interfered with and accordingly the same is set aside. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.