IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 42 of 2009 Hari Sagar Educational Trust. .……… Appellant Versus Registrar, Uttarakhand Technical University.………. Respondent Mr. U.K. Uniyal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vinod Nautiyal, Advocate for the respondent University. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. J.S. KHEHAR, C. J. (Oral) Through the instant Special Appeal, the appellant has impugned the order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 12.02.2009, whereby Writ Petition No. 187 of 2009 (M/S) filed by the appellant was disposed of. The impugned order dated 12.02.2009 reveals that the writ petition filed by the appellant was not examined on merits, but was disposed of with a direction to the appellant to avail an alternative remedy provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The sequence of facts narrated in the writ petition [Writ Petition No. 187 of 2009 (M/S)] reveal that the appellant had raised a challenge to an order dated 13.01.2009 issued by the Uttarakhand Technical University. The said order was based / founded on an order issued by the State Information Commission dated 01.01.2009. In sum and substance, therefore, the appellant would have an alternative remedy under the Right to Information Act, 2005 only if the order dated 01.01.2009 could have been assailed under the provisions of the said Act. We have perused Sections 18 & 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Insofar as Section 18 (which was referred to in the impugned order dated 12.02.2009) is concerned, the same deals with the powers and functions of Information Commissions. Per se, therefore, Section 18 does not provide for an alternative remedy. It is, therefore, that we required learned counsel for the appellant to assist us on Section 19 of the Right to 2 Information Act, 2005, wherein appeals are provided against certain orders passed under the Act. Having examined the same and specially in the background of sub-section (7) thereof, which mandates that an order inter alia passed by the State Information Commission shall be binding, it emerges that no appellate remedy was available to the appellant / petitioner under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It was, therefore, that we required the learned counsel for the respondent to point out any provision under the Right to Information Act, 2005, whereby a remedy so as to impugn the order dated 01.01.2009 / 13.01.2009 could be available to the appellant / petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, very fairly submitted that no remedy is available to the appellant / petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In view of the above, we are satisfied that no alternative remedy was available to the appellant. As such, the impugned order dated 12.02.2009 has necessarily to be set aside. The same is accordingly set aside. Let the original Writ Petition be listed before a learned Single Judge on 21.12.2009 as per Roster. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C. J.) 02.12.2009 02.12.2009 G