JUDGMENT : S.R. Sen, J Heard Mr. N. Syngkon, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant and Mr. N. Mozika, learned counsel on behalf the respondent No. 1, 3 and 4. 2. In the instant appeal the learned appellant challenged the judgment and order dated 11-07-2018 passed in WP(C) No. 216 of 2018 by the learned Single Judge. We have gone through the impugned judgment specifically para 17 and we do not find any infirmity in the said judgment. In support to that, we rely on para 63 of the judgment passed by Honble Supreme Court in case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. reported in (2011) 8 SCC 497 . Para 63 of the said judgment is reproduce herein below: "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. 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. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. 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. 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." 3. On bare perusal of the said judgment we understand that when the information is not available with the concerned office or authority, they cannot be compelled to furnish the information. We specifically rely on the para 63 where the Honble Supreme Court has observed; "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 regulation 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." 4. After perusal of the impugned judgment referred above as well as judgment of the Honble Supreme Court referred above, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Hence, we are unable to accept the appeal. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and stands disposed of. However, if the petitioner wants to pursue the matter for inquiry he is at liberty to file a separate petition. 6. With this observation, the matter stands disposed of.