WP(C) 2621/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K. MUSAHARY Heard Mr. S.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Dr . B. Ahmed, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department. The petitioner is a social worker who took up the matter regarding so called il legal and arbitrari shifting of place of construction of Singlacherra Nala (smal l river) from village Fatipath to Hrintilla village against the interest of the local people. He applied for certain documents before the Executive Engineer, Karimganj for furnishing him with certain important documents for which he depo sited the fees etc as required under the Right to Information Act. Inspite of t hat the required documents were not supplied to him. He then made an appeal bef ore the Chief Engineer, Chandmari, Guwahati, who in his turn directed the Superi ntending Engineer concerned to furnish the documents sought by the petitioner. I nspite of such direction from the higher authorities the respondent Executive En gineer refused to supply the said documents. This led him to file the present wr it petition. Dr. B. Ahmed, learned Standing Counsel submits that this writ petition is not ma intainable inasmuch as the petitioner has not exercised alternative remedy i.e. the appeal provision u/s. 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. I have gone through the aforesaid provision and I am satisfied that the petition er is having a statutory right to appeal under the aforesaid provision which he has not yet availed. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file an appeal before the appropriate authority under the RTI Act and if such appeal is filed the appellate authority shall consider/ examine an d dispose of the same by a speaking order as per the existing provision under th e RTI Act after providing the petitioner an opportunity of hearing within a per iod of 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of the appeal.