5. At this juncture, when this Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing, Mr. Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent / Information Seeker, on instructions, would submit that, though the information which she sought for from the petitioners' department were not supplied and those documents were not brought for inspection for taking a photo copy at the Commission's Office, as directed by the Information Commission, subsequently after filing of this Writ Petition in the year 2008, the petitioners' department had come forward to furnish all those information / documents which were sought for by the Information Seeker and accordingly those information / documents in entirety were received by the second respondent / Information Seeker. Therefore, insofar as getting of information sought for by the second respondent is concerned, after 2008, since the documents and information were furnished to her, she could not have any further grievance. Further he would add that, insofar as the impugned summons or orders issued by the Commission to the petitioners' department, it is between the Commission and the petitioners' department to agitate the issue, if at all they want to agitate. Therefore, in this context, the second respondent does not have any grievance as satisfactorily she has received the documents, which she sought for.
