JUDGMENT & ORDER : BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking directions to provide informations to the petitioner as per the order passed by the respondent No. 3 Central Information Commissioner under the Right to Information Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). 2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had sought various information from the Central Public Information Officer, at SBI, Nadiad, as contained in his application at Annexure 'B'. The Public Information Officer vide the letter dated 16.08.2013 provided the information on the point Nos. 4 and 7 and denied the information on Point Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 for the reasons stated therein. Being dissatisfied with the said reply, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority on 21.08.2013. The First Appellate Authority vide the order dated 24.09.2013 while concurring with the decision of Public Information Officer, directed him to provide extract of guidelines for recruitment of Peon/Messenger as sought for the Point No. 5. The petitioner again being dissatisfied with the said decision, had filed the Second Appeal before the respondent No. 3 Commissioner. The respondent No. 3 disposed of the said appeal by holding that the petitioner was already provided with the information as permissible under the said Act. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. Having heard the learned advocate Mr. Parmar for the petitioner and to the document on record, more particularly, the application made by the petitioner before the Public Information Officer seeking various kind of information as contained therein, it appears that the most of the information sought for was either relating to third party or the information which the Bank was not supposed to maintain under any law. 4. The Supreme Court while interpreting the provisions of the said Act in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and Another versus Aditya Bandopadhyay and Others, (2011) 8 SCC 497 , has held as under : - "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. 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." 5. Further in case of Institute of Chartered Accounts of India versus Shaunak H. Satya and Others, (2011) 8 SCC 781 , the Supreme Court considering the safeguards built into the Act in the light of the objects of the Act, observed as under: - "23. The information to which RTI Act applies falls into two categories, namely, (i) information which promotes transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, disclosure of which helps in containing or discouraging corruption, enumerated in clauses (b) and (c) of section 4(1) of RTI Act; and (ii) other information held by public authorities not falling under section 4(1)(b) and (c) of RTI Act. In regard to information falling under the first category, the public authorities owe a duty to disseminate the information widely suo moto to the public so as to make it easily accessible to the public. In regard to information enumerated or required to be enumerated under section 4(1)(b) and (c) of RTI Act, necessarily and naturally, the competent authorities under the RTI Act, will have to act in a proactive manner so as to ensure accountability and ensure that the fight against corruption goes on relentlessly. But in regard to other information which do not fall under Section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act, there is a need to proceed with circumspection as it is necessary to find out whether they are exempted from disclosure. 24. One of the objects of democracy is to bring about transparency of information to contain corruption and bring about accountability. But achieving this object does not mean that other equally important public interests including efficient functioning of the governments and public authorities, optimum use of limited fiscal resources, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, etc. are to be ignored or sacrificed. The object of RTI Act is to harmonize the conflicting public interests, that is, ensuring transparency to bring in accountability and containing corruption on the one hand, and at the same time ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not harm or adversely affect other public interests which include efficient functioning of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information, on the other hand. While sections 3 and 4 seek to achieve the first objective, sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 seek to achieve the second objective. 25. Therefore when section 8 exempts certain information from being disclosed, it should not be considered to be a fetter on the right to information, but as an equally important provision protecting other public interests essential for the fulfilment and preservation of democratic ideals. Therefore in dealing with information not falling under section 4(1) (b) and (c), the competent authorities under the RTI Act will not read the exemptions in section 8 in a restrictive manner but in a practical manner so that the other public interests are preserved and the RTI Act attains a fine balance between its goal of attaining transparency of information and safeguarding the other public interests." 6. From the afore stated settled legal position, it clearly emerges that the said Act provides access to such information that is available and existing. If a Public Information Officer has any information in the form of data or analyzed data, or abstracts or statistics, the applicant may access such information subject to the exemptions under Section 8 of the said Act. Where the information sought, is not a part of the record of the public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast any obligation upon the public authority to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to the applicant. A public authority is not required to furnish information by drawing inference or making assumptions nor it is required to provide "advice" or "opinion" to the applicant. The twine objects of the Act are to ensure transparency to bring accountability on one hand and to ensure that the revelation of information in actual practice does not harm or adversely affect the other public interest including efficient functioning of the public authorities, on the other hand. 7. Since the information sought on the points which have not been provided by the respondent authorities was not covered within the definition of the information as contained in Section 2(f) or was the information pertaining to the third party, the respondent authorities have rightly denied the same. 8. In that view of the matter, the petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.