1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 20.10.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.(MD)No.2787 of 2011 P.Ramar .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Director of School Education, Directorate, College Road, Chennai-6. 2.The Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District. 3.The Public Information Officer, The District Educational Officer, O/o.District Educational Office, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District. 4.M.Muthumari. ... Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Na.Ka.No.8508/A1/2010, dated 23.02.2011 on the file of the respondent No.3 and quash the same as illegal and consequently to direct the respondent No.3 to provide the information required for vide the petitioner's application dated 07.12.2010, within a time stipulated by this Court. For Petitioner :Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents :Mr.TS.MD.Mohideen AGP for R1 to R3 ORDER The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge the order of the third respondent, who is the Public Information Officer, attached to the District Educational Officer, Aruppukottai. 2. It is not clear as to why the petitioner came to this Court challenging the order passed by the Public Information Officer, before whom the petitioner made an unsuccessful attempt to get information, especially when the Department has notified an appellate authority. In such course, Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred as the Act) provides an appeal remedy under Section 19 to the Tamil Nadu Information Commission. It is only the Commissioner, who can make the enquiry whether there was any denial of information. The Commissioner can also impose penalty in terms of Section 20 of the Act on the information officer, who is guilty of stonewalling any information. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. Under such circumstances, since the petitioner has an alternative remedy by way of an appeal, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. It is not a case where the petitioner is seeking any direction against the Department, in which case this Court can consider moulding the relief in the writ petition. But, the attack is only on the denial of information. Therefore, the remedy has to be exhausted in terms of the Act. In view of the same, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Deputy Registrar (Accounts) /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The Director of School Education Directorate, College Road, Chennai-6. 2.The Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar District. 3.The Public Information Officer, The District Educational Officer, O/o.District Educational Office, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District. +1cc to Mr.T.Lajapathy Roy, Advocate, SR.No.36538 jikr GH : 08.11.2011 : 2p/5c Order made in W.P.(MD)No.2787 of 2011 20.10.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/