JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral)—On 25.09.2014, petitioner moved an application, seeking following information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act):- "1. Authenticated photocopies of the dispatch register pertaining to the office of the Institutional Ethics Committee (IEC), Dr. R.P. Govt. Medical College, Kangra at Tanda (HP)-176001 for the period 01 January 2013 to 11 September 2014. 2. Authenticated photocopies of the proceedings in respect to letter No.HFW-HDRPGMC/ Ethics/2014/72 dated 15.07.2014 pertaining to the office of the Institutional Ethics Committee of Dr. R.. Govt. Medical College, Kangra at Tanda (HP)-176001." 2. Significantly, information sought for pertains to the Department of which the petitioner himself is heading. It is a matter of record that file pertaining to point No.1 (supra) of which information was sought, is missing from the Department. Undisputedly, with respect to the same, no action stands taken by the petitioner, either on the administrative side or otherwise. However, for reasons best known to him, with the missing of such record, on 25.09.2014, he moved an application under the provisions of the Act. He did not seek information about the manner in which the record came to be missing or the action taken by the authorities with respect thereto. Be that as it may, since no information came to be furnished by the Public Information Officer, Dr. R.P. Government Medical College, Kangra at Tanda, on 13.10.2014, petitioner filed an appeal, envisaged under the provisions of Section 19 of the RTI Act, which came to be disposed of by the appropriate authority in terms of order dated 17.11.2015 (Annexure P-5), with a direction to furnish information on point No.2. While dealing with the same, information with regard to point No.1, appropriate authority held the petitioner otherwise not entitled to such information. 3. Dissatisfied with the same, petitioner took recourse to a remedy, by moving an application, purported to be a complaint, before the State Information Commissioner. Though it is contended that such action was in fact a complaint, as envisaged under Section 18 of the Act, and not an appeal, before the State Chief Information Commissioner, as envisaged under sub Section 3 of Section 19 of the Act, but this Court is of the view that actually it is an appeal to such authority. 4. Though it is contended that such action was in fact a complaint, as envisaged under Section 18 of the Act, and not an appeal, before the State Chief Information Commissioner, as envisaged under sub Section 3 of Section 19 of the Act, but this Court is of the view that actually it is an appeal to such authority. 4. Mere mention of a word "complaint" or "Section 18" of the Act would not make the application to be a complaint. The body of the application, including the prayer clause makes it to be an appeal. In fact, in the subject matter itself, it is recorded that it is a complaint against the decision of the First Appellate Authority. There could not have been any complaint against the appellate authority for the simple reason that the petitioner''s appeal came to be disposed off, rather promptly. Whether findings of the appellate authority are perverse or not? of course, is a different matter. It is not that the appellate authority exceeded its jurisdiction or failed to discharge its statutory duty. As such, State Chief Information Commissioner was right in treating the application so filed by the complainant as an appeal, also envisaged under the provisions of Section 19 of the Act. 5. On this count, Mr. Vikram Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, rightly invites attention of this Court to the fact that not only did the petitioner subject himself to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner as an appellate authority, but allowed the respondent to file reply and by accepting it as an appeal, agreed to file rejoinder. 6. Whether findings returned by the appellate authority are in consonance with law, are just, fair, legal and not perverse is a different matter. 7. There cannot be any dispute, more so, in the light of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Chief Information Commissioner and another v. State of Manipur and another, (2011) 15 SCC 1 , that the scope of power(s) to be exercised by the authorities under Sections 18 and 19 of the Act, are distinct and separate. In the backdrop of the view expressed (supra), holding the petitioner''s application to be an appeal, question of the authority having failed to exercise its statutory powers under Section 18 of the Act, does not arise for consideration. 8. In the backdrop of the view expressed (supra), holding the petitioner''s application to be an appeal, question of the authority having failed to exercise its statutory powers under Section 18 of the Act, does not arise for consideration. 8. At this stage, it is contended that the State Chief Information Commissioner, without even waiting for the petitioner to file his rejoinder, dismissed the application, in terms of impugned order dated 27.05.2015 (Annexure P-10). In effect, the grievance vented out appears to be against the State Chief Information Commissioner, who despite having afforded opportunity to the petitioner to file rejoinder, decided the case prior to the date on which such rejoinder came to be filed. 9. Under these circumstances, the only best way, this petition can be disposed of, at this stage, is with a direction to the petitioner to file his personal affidavit bringing all such fact(s) to the notice of respondent No 1., who shall decide the issue, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks. Ordered accordingly. 10. Needless to add, certified copy of the order shall be supplied by the petitioner to respondent No.1. 11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.