JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18.11.2016, communicated vide Memo no. 28483 dated 13.12.2016, passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Appeal No. 2527 of 2011, whereby the said appeal filed by the petitioner has been disposed of. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed an application on 28.03.2011 under the Right to Information Act 2005 (In short to be referred as R.T.I. Act) before the respondent no. 4 being the Public Information Officer(P.I.O.) seeking certain information with regard to the raising of wrong electrical bills to the petitioner. However, the said information was not provided to the petitioner within the statutory period and the petitioner preferred First Appeal before the respondent no. 3, but the information sought by the petitioner was also not provided by the first appellate authority. The petitioner thereafter filed Appeal No. 2527 of 2011 before the State Information Commission. According to the petitioner, the said appeal was heard on several dates, but the information sought by the petitioner was not provided by the respondent nos. 3 and 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus submits that the Chief Information Commissioner hurriedly disposed of the Appeal No. 2527 of 2011 without considering the fact that the information sought by the petitioner was not made available to him. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-J.U.V.N.L. submits that the impugned order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner is completely justified and the same needs no interference by this Court, as the petitioner himself did not comply the order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand on 23.08.2016 in the said appeal. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the relevant documents available on record it appears that the Second Appeal being Appeal No. 2527 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner before the State Information Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi as the information sought by the petitioner was not provided either by the Public Information Officer-respondent no. 4 or the first appellate authority (respondent no. 3). On perusal of the impugned order dated 18.11.2016 communicated vide memo no. 28483 dated 13.12.2016, it appears that on the said date, when the appeal was taken up, the Public Information Officer was present before the State Information Commission, however the petitioner was not present. 4 or the first appellate authority (respondent no. 3). On perusal of the impugned order dated 18.11.2016 communicated vide memo no. 28483 dated 13.12.2016, it appears that on the said date, when the appeal was taken up, the Public Information Officer was present before the State Information Commission, however the petitioner was not present. Learned Chief Information Commissioner has observed in the impugned order that on 23.08.2016 i.e. previous date, the Commission had directed the petitioner to once again submit applications dated 01.02.2010, 10.07.2010, 01.01.2011 and 21.08.2011 in the office of P.I.O.. In course of hearing of the said appeal, the P.I.O. stated in writing before the Chief Information Commissioner that the copies of the said applications which were directed to be furnished to him have not yet been furnished by the petitioner. Under the said circumstance, the Chief Information Commissioner reached a conclusion that the petitioner is either satisfied with the information provided to him or has lost interest in pursuing the said appeal. Accordingly Appeal No. 2527 of 2011 was disposed of. It is noticeable that the said Second Appeal was filed before the State Information Commission, Jharkhand, Ranchi in the year 2011 itself. Said appeal was heard on several dates in which P.I.O. also appeared. The petitioner did not furnish the copies of the applications to the P.I.O. (respondent no. 4) in terms with the direction given by the learned Chief Information Commissioner. Under the said circumstance, I find that the petitioner has failed to make out any reasonable ground so as to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner. The High Court did not exercise jurisdiction as an appellate authority over the State Information Commission. Extraordinary writ jurisdiction in such matter is to be exercised sparingly if the fact of the case so warrants. 5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no infirmity in the order dated 18.11.2016 communicated vide Memo no. 28483 dated 13.12.2016 passed by Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Appeal No. 2527 of 2011. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.