JUDGMENT 1. This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to take appropriate legal action on his petition dated 25.7.2012. A copy of the said petition is found enclosed at pages 11 and 12 of the typed set. The petition is addressed to the Tahsildar, Villupuram, who is the 3rd respondent. 2. It is not clear as to how when the petition was sent to the Tahsildar, action can be taken by the District Collector as well as the State Information Commission, who are the first and second respondents respectively. It is seen from the records that the petitioner has grievance against the 4th respondent, who is the Village Assistant of Erumanthangal Village, Villupuram Taluk. Alleging that the 4th respondent has produced a false educational Certificate, the petitioner sent a representation to the Chief Minister's Grievance Cell. 3. Thereafter, he filed an application under the Right to Information Act before the 1st respondent describing the same as an appeal under the Right to Information Act. In the meanwhile, the Zonal Deputy Tashildar cum Public Information Officer called for explanation from the 4th respondent regarding the information sought for by the petitioner. Pursuant to the letter received from the Public Information Officer, the 4th respondent informed that the copy sought for by the petitioner could not be furnished. 4. Such a procedure is contemplated under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, wherein any individual, whose interest may be affected, can raise an objection and claim exemption from disclosure of information. The fact that the 4th objected to, was informed to the petitioner by the office of the 2nd respondent. No order has been passed by the Information Officer. In case where the Public Information Officer has declined to give information or upholding the privilege claimed by the third party, the remedy is further appeal to the appellate authority, failing which a second appeal to the 1st respondent Commission. 5. In the present case, the petitioner has sent an appeal to the 1st respondent Information Commission on 6.10.2012 and thereafter has come forward to file the present Writ Petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to take action on the representation dated 25.7.2012. It is not as if the Public Information Officer did not take action on the petitioner's representation. It is not as if the Public Information Officer did not take action on the petitioner's representation. On the other hand, reaction of the third party has been communicated to the petitioner. 6. If the petitioner is aggrieved, the remedy is for an appeal failing which a second appeal to the Information Commission. In the present case, the petitioner has already filed the representation. If at all, it could be taken note as Second Appeal in terms of Section 19 of the Right to Information Act. Even before any action is initiated by the Information Commission, the petitioner has rushed to this Court. This only shows the petitioner has strong prejudice against the 4th respondent and by somehow the petitioner wants action to be initiated against the 4th respondent. If the petitioner wants to recourse the Right to Information Act, he has to logically continue his effort before the Commission. This Court is not inclined to entertain at this stage the present Writ Petition where the relief is claimed in terms of the petition sent to the 3rd respondent. The Writ Petition is misconceived and accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.