JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs. “(a) Quash orders Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2; (b) Direct the production of all the relevant records; (c) Allow any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and (d) Allow the costs of the petition.” 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present case are that the present petitioner which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act alongwith registered office at Solan is aggrieved by an order passed by respondent No. 1, dated 04.01.2011, Annexure P-1, vide which respondent No. 1 has directed respondent No. 2 to revisit the matter and determine whether respondent No. 2 had the authority to call for the information from the present petitioner which was sought under The Right to Information Act, 2005 by respondent No. 3, and also against Annexure P-2 i.e. communication dated 18.01.2011 issued by respondent No. 2 to the present petitioner pursuant to Annexure P-1, whereby respondent No. 2 directed the present petitioner to furnish the information as was desired under The Right to Information Act, 2005. 3. Despite service as no one appeared for respondents No. 1 and 3, they were accordingly proceeded against ex parte by this Court on 21.03.2017. 4. I have heard Mr. K.D. Sood, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. M.A. Khan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2. It is a matter of record, impugned order Annexure P-1 has been passed by respondent No. 1 without hearing the present petitioner. This is evident from the perusal of the impugned order itself which demonstrates that the parties present before respondent No. 1 when the said matter was heard and disposed of were (a) Appellant (b) Public Authority, Registrar of Companies, Chandigarh (Ministry of Corporate Affairs). 5. Sub-Section 4 of Section 19 of The Right to Information Act, 2005 reads as under: “Section 19 (4): If the decision of the Central Public Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, against which an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to that third party.” 6. The impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 is in flagrant violation of the statutory provisions so contained under The Right to Information Act, 2005, as the information which was being sought by respondent No. 3 under the Right to Information Act pertained to third party, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent No. 1 to have had given a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as the same was third party as is envisaged under Sub-Section 4 of Section 19 of the Right to Information Act. 7. Not only this, the impugned order was not sustainable in the eyes of law as Section 2 (f) of Act contemplates that information which has to be sought interalia means that information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force. 8. There is no finding returned in the impugned order that the information which was being sought by respondent No. 3 and qua which directions have been issued by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 was such information as can be accessed by a Public Authority under any other law for the time being in force. 9. This is further evident from the reply which has been filed to the present petition by respondent No. 2 in which it is categorically mentioned that information sought by respondent No. 3 is not required to be filed with respondent No. 2 under the provisions of Companies Act. Para 5 of the reply filed by respondent No. 2 is quoted here-in-below. “5. that it is admitted the information sought by respondent No. 3 is not required to be filed with the Registrar of Companies under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. It is further submitted that under the RTI Act, 2005, the Central Information Commission has no power to pass an order related to a third party without giving an opportunity of being heard to the third party. It is further submitted that the ROC can provide information which is available with this office. Moreover, the documents related to the companies filed with ROC are public documents and available for inspection and for obtaining certified copies under Section 610 of the Companies Act, 1956. It is further submitted that the ROC can provide information which is available with this office. Moreover, the documents related to the companies filed with ROC are public documents and available for inspection and for obtaining certified copies under Section 610 of the Companies Act, 1956. As the document available with ROC are already in public domain being available for inspection and certified copies, the provisions of RTI Act are not applicable. There is no question of providing any information which is already in public domain.” 10. Therefore, as is evidently clear, the impugned order Annexure P-1 passed by respondent No. 1 is not only in violation of the statutory provisions of The Right to Information Act, 2005, but the order so passed is also in excess of the jurisdictions vested in the said authority to pass order under the Right to Information Act. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed and order dated 14.01.2011, Annexure P-1, passed by respondent No. 1 is quashed and set aside. Communication dated 18.01.2011, Annexure P-2, which is an after-shoot of Annexure P-1, is also accordingly quashed and set aside. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.