JUDGMENT : The petitioner herein, viz, the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Limited, is an undertaking fully owned by the State Government, which is involved in the plantation and allied agricultural operations. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned Ext.P-9 second appellate order dated 8.3.2011 rendered by the 1st respondent-State Information Commission, whereby the petitioner-company has been directed to disclose certain information and details to the 2nd respondent, which according to the petitioner, have not been maintained by their office. The main prayers in this Writ Petition (Civil) filed on 2.5.2011 are as Follows : “(i) call for the records relating to Exhibit P-9 order and quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or such other appropriate writ, order or direction; (ii) stay the operation and implementation of Exhibit P-9 Order till disposal of the Writ Petition.” 2. Heard Sri. N. Rajesh, learned Standing Counsel for the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd., appearing for the petitioner-company, Sri. M. Ajay, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Information Commission, appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri. C.V. Manuvilsan, learned counsel appearing for the contesting 2nd respondent. 3. The 2nd respondent had filed Ext.P-1 application dated 23.4.2009 under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, requiring the petitioner-company to disclose certain information and details. All the details sought for in Ext.P-1 application other than query No.2 have been duly disclosed by the petitioner-company to the 2nd respondent as per Ext.P-2 reply dated 21.5.2009. Query No.2 of Ext.P-1 application is as follows : “xxx” The said query is that the petitioner-company should disclose the details of profit and loss accounts of the petitioner-company in respect of each of the estates separately for the years from 2005 up to 2009. As regards the said query No.2, the Information Officer of the petitioner-company has stated in Ext.P-2 reply that the said details regarding the profit and loss account of the company in respect of each of the estates have not been maintained separately as the accounts regarding the profit and loss are based on income and expenditure maintained cumulatively in respect of all the activities of the estate of the petitioner-company and that they do not maintain separate accounts regarding the profits and loss pertaining to each of the estates separately. Aggrieved by the said response regarding query No.2, the 2nd respondent has filed Ext.P-3 first appeal before the designated appellate authority of the petitioner-company in terms of the provisions contained in the Right to Information Act and the very same reason was reiterated by the first appellate authority in Ext.P-4, whereby the plea in the said first appeal was declined. Aggrieved thereby, the 2nd respondent has filed Ext.P-5 second appeal before the 1st respondent-Kerala State Information Commission in terms of the provisions contained in the Right to Information Act, 2005. On receipt of notice of Ext.P-5 second appeal, the petitioner-company had filed Ext.P-6 explanation dated 17.11.2009 before the 1st respondent (second appellate authority). Further Ext.P-7 affidavit was also filed by the petitioner reiterating the very same stand as stated earlier. The 1st respondent-Kerala State Information Commission has passed the impugned Ext.P-9 order dated 8.3.2011, whereby the plea in Ext.P-5 second appeal filed by the 2nd respondent has been allowed and ordered the petitioner-company to disclose the said details raised as query No.2 of Ext.P-1 application to the 2nd respondent within 15 days. The petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned Ext.P-9 second appellate order. 4. The consistent stand of the petitioner-company was that the said company is maintaining only consolidated accounts regarding the profit and loss account based on the income and expenditure pertaining to plantation and farming activities of all the estates of the petitioner-company and that it is not separately maintaining accounts relating to profit and loss accounts in respect of each of its estates separately. The issue is as to whether the said stand taken by the authorities of the petitioner-company in Ext.P-2 original order and Ext.P-3 first appellate order is correct or whether the contra view taken by the second appellate authority (Kerala State Information Commission) in the impugned Ext.P-9 second appellate order is correct, etc. 5. The issue is as to whether the said stand taken by the authorities of the petitioner-company in Ext.P-2 original order and Ext.P-3 first appellate order is correct or whether the contra view taken by the second appellate authority (Kerala State Information Commission) in the impugned Ext.P-9 second appellate order is correct, etc. 5. Sec.3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, provides as follows : “Sec.3: Right to information.- Subject to the provisions of this Act, all citizens shall have the right to information.” Sec.2(j) of the Right to Information Act stipulates as follows : Sec.2: Definitions.- In this Act, unless the untext otherwise requires,- (a) xxx xxx xxx (j) “right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device.” Therefore, right of an applicant to seek information by submitting an application before the authorities concerned as conceived in Sec.6 should be in respect of right to information invokable under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, which is held by the public authority, etc. So, the information in question should be one which is held by or under the control of Public Information Officer in order to make it amenable for disclosing it in terms of the provisions of the Right to Information Act subject to any objections. The petitioner-company is not claiming any specific exemption. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that the company is not maintaining records of profit and loss accounts separately of its various estates and it is only maintaining a cumulative profit and loss account pertaining to the plantation and farming activities being effected in all its estates. The said factual submission of the petitioner-company that it is not maintaining separate accounts relating to profit and loss accounts pertaining to each of its estates has not been factually controverted by the respondents. The said factual submission of the petitioner-company that it is not maintaining separate accounts relating to profit and loss accounts pertaining to each of its estates has not been factually controverted by the respondents. The 2nd respondent has not been able to effectively controvert the said factual averment asserted by the petitioner-company that it is not maintaining separate accounts regarding the profit and loss account of each of its estates and that it is only maintaining profit and loss accounts pertaining to all the activities in respect of all the estates together. The respondents have not been able to point out any provision or any statute or rule or order or circular on the basis of which it could be contended that in law, the petitioner-company is obliged with the duty to maintain such separate accounts relating to profit and loss account of each of its estates. According to the petitioner-company, it is maintaining accounts pertaining to its units in each of the financial years concerned, which is in compliance with the Companies Act, Income tax Act, etc. No provision or any rule or instructions or orders of the Government or Circulars of the Government have been placed before this Court by the respondents to show that the petitioner-company is having such a duty to maintain the profit and loss account pertaining to each of its estates. So long as the law does not oblige the petitioner-company to maintain the information in question and so long as the petitioner does not maintain any such datas and figures as sought for by the 2nd respondent, there is no question of holding that information in question as the one which is held by or under the control of the petitioner-company. Only if the requirements of Sec.2(j) of the Right to Information Act are clearly satisfied, the provision in Sec.3 would come into play and only if such conditions are fully satisfied can a applicant lawfully maintain his application seeking disclosure of information as sought for by him. In the instant case, the respondents have not been able to plead and establish the said aspect that the petitioner has been cast with any legal obligation to maintain any such datas and figures or that as a matter of fact the petitioner-company is maintaining such information. In the instant case, the respondents have not been able to plead and establish the said aspect that the petitioner has been cast with any legal obligation to maintain any such datas and figures or that as a matter of fact the petitioner-company is maintaining such information. Therefore, the stand taken by the 1st respondent-State Commission in the impugned Ext.P-9 second appellate order is clearly unsustainable and untenable in law and requires judicial interdiction. 6. True that, based on the present materials on record and the submissions on either side, this Court can only hold that there is no legal obligation cast on the petitioner-company to keep separate profit and loss accounts pertaining to each of its estates. Even if such a legal obligation is absent, the petitioner-company being a public sector undertaking, fully owned by the State Government, may consider whether at least in future it would be a better management practice to keep accounts relating to not only the cumulative profit and loss accounts pertaining to all the activities of the petitioner-company, but also to keep separate profit and loss accounts of each of its estates so that this would also equip the petitioner-company for better management and for effective remedial action if some of its estates are not turning out sufficient profits which it could have otherwise generated. In the light of these aspects, the Board of Directors of the petitioner-company may consider the issue as to whether atleast in future it may maintain accounts in such a manner not only the cumulative profit and loss accounts pertaining to all of its estates but also for maintaining a separate accounts as aforestated. This is a matter which is fully within the managerial decision of the petitioner-company and this Court has only observed that it is for the Board of Directors of the petitioner-company to bestow its attention to decide in exercise of its proper discretion as to whether such a course of action should be adopted for better and efficacious action and better management practice. A decision in that regard may be taken by the Board of Directors of the petitioner-company atleast well before the expiry of the current financial year ending on 31.3.2019. In the light of the above discussion it is only to be held that Ext.P-9 is illegal and wrong and the same will stand quashed. A decision in that regard may be taken by the Board of Directors of the petitioner-company atleast well before the expiry of the current financial year ending on 31.3.2019. In the light of the above discussion it is only to be held that Ext.P-9 is illegal and wrong and the same will stand quashed. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.