IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 106 of 2011 B.S.M.(P.G.)College, Roorkee. … Petitioner. Versus Uttarakhand State Information Commission and another. … Respondents. Mr. Ajay Veer Punder, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Date January 14, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Urgency Application & Stay Application) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sout a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15-12-2010 passed in appeal No. A-3900/2010 contained as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The petitioner has further sought a writ of certiorari quashing the proceedings of appeal No. A-4014 of 2010 pending before respondent no.1. A perusal of the record shows that by the impugned orders passed by the State Information Commissioner dated 15-12- 2010 it is obvious that no final order has been passed against the petitioner and the file has been ordered to be put up on 17-1-2011. From a perusal of order dated 15-12-2010 passed in Appeal No. 4014 of 2010 it reveals that a show cause notice has been issued to the respondents including the petitioner herein and they have been asked to submit their reply by 17-1-2011. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition as preferred by the petitioner is premature and is liable to be dismissed outright. 2 Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. The petitioner may however raise all the objections including that of maintainability before the second appellate authority, who shall decide the appeals after considering the objections of the petitioner expeditiously as far as possible. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP Vacation Judge