Judgment : The Court: The petitioner in this art. 226 petition dated July 12, 2010 is questioning the decision of the Special Public Information Officer (Assessment) dated May 10,2010 (at p.17). The petitioner submitted an application dated April 12,2010 (at p.16) regarding “Information and imparting documents relating to the matter referred to herein below according to RTI Act, 2005 in respect of premises 24, Karaya Road, Kolkata-17 (Assessee no: 11064410073)”. In response to the application the Special Public Information Officer (Assessment) gave the decision impugned in the petition. According to counsel for the petitioner there is no question of appealing from the decision, since as will appear from nos. 1 and 6 of the document the official giving the decision has said that the information can be had from the O/o the Ld Legal Advisor” and as a matter of fact by saying that the information “may be had from the Superintendent of Records and this is not available with our department” he has not virtually given any decision within the meaning of s.7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. He relies on University of Calcutta v. Pritam Rooj, 2009 (1) CHN 795 . I am unable to see how the division bench decision can apply to the case. Rightly or wrongly the official dealing with the application under s.6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 has given his decision. Whether the decision is a decision is to be examined by the appellate authority under s. 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. When the special statute provides for special remedy of appeal, I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision in exercise of power under art.226. It is not the case that the decision completely without jurisdiction. In my opinion, the petitioner’s remedy, if any, is before the appellate authority under s.19. For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs.