IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 687 of 2008 (M/S) S.D. Mehandidatta … Petitioner Versus State Information Commission and others … Respondents Mr. Naveent Kaushik, Advocate counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 2 & 3. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the respondent no.1. 14th May, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is absolutely misconceived as the petitioner has alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal before the appellate tribunal or by way of an application the petitioner can also approach the State Information Officer under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Moreover the petitioner has not made any worthwhile averments stating as to how the petitioner is outside the purview of the Right to Information Act and as to how the information being sought is not actually an “information” as defined under the Act. On this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative remedy provided to him under the Right to Information Act. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 14.05.2009 Virendra