JUDGMENT : 1. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner is a registered Society under the Cooperative Societies Act. S. Sudershan Singh Wazir is duly elected President of the petitioner-Society. Applications were invited by the Indian Oil Corporation for Retail Outlet Dealership at Railway Road, Jammu. Number of candidates applied for the same. Interview for the selection of this Retail Outlet Dealership was conducted by the Dealer Selection Board on 20th /21st of March, 2001. Thereafter a select list was notified in which the petitioner was placed at Sr. No. 2 and one Capt. Brij Padha at Sr. No. 1. Petitioner made a complaint against Capt. Brij Padha, the empanelled candidate at Sr. No. 1 for making false declarations which was investigated under the directions of the Dealer Selection Board. The Dealer Selection Board during the course of investigation found that the claim of Capt. Brij Padha was deficient and therefore, recommended the name of the empanelled candidate at Sr. No. 2 i.e. the petitioner Society for the allotment of the retail outlet. The allotment of Retail outlet to the petitioner was also referred for inquiry to Director General Anti Adulteration Cell, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi which was thoroughly looked into by the Director General Anti Adulteration Cell, who after inquiry, communicated back to the Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas that the allotment made was absolutely in order. Then a complaint was registered by the CBI against the President of petitioner-society along with three other persons namely P. K. Yadav and Pamposh Wattal, both officers of IOC, and third one namely Vinod malhotra, Chief Town planner JDA, on 30.8.2003 u/s 120-B read with 420, 465,468 and 471 RPC and 5(2) read with 5(1) (d) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act. The matter was investigated and final closure report was submitted before Sp. Judge Anticorruption, which was accepted on 25.02.2005. In the meantime I/0 in the case asked vide letter dated 10.3.2005 to DIG, CBI, ACR Chandigarh for cancellation of IOCL Retail Outlet allotted to M/S SBCCS Ltd by conduction a fresh inquiry on the claims of M/S SBCCS Ltd based on which allotment was made, and to take appropriate action against P.K.Yadav the Sr. DM Jammu as deemed fit. That IOC has cancelled the petitioner’s Retail Outlet Dealership on 13.10.2005 vide communication No.JMDO/Retail. 2. DM Jammu as deemed fit. That IOC has cancelled the petitioner’s Retail Outlet Dealership on 13.10.2005 vide communication No.JMDO/Retail. 2. The petitioner against this communication immediately filed a petition under Section 9 of the Jammu and Kashmir Arbitration and Conciliation Act because as per the agreement between the petitioner and the Indian Oil Corporation, dispute arising out of the agreement was referable to the Arbitrator in terms of Clause 67 of the Agreement. Learned District Judge vide order dated 15.10.2005 stayed the aforesaid communication with a further direction to the OIC to restore the supply. During the pendency of the petition under Section 9 of the Act, Indian Oil Corporation appointed respondent No.5 as an Arbitrator on 11.11.2005. After filing of the statement of claim, the petitioner approached the learned Arbitrator by way of an application dated 25.08.2006 seeking communication of the CBI whereby the termination was recommended. The learned Arbitrator treated the application of the petitioner as a delay tactics. The request for supply of the communication of the CBI regarding cancellation of dealership was declined. The petitioner continued insisting for the supply of the document viz copy of the CBI communication. The learned Arbitrator vide order dated 22.12.2007 communicated to the petitioner that the respondent-IOC did not supply the copy of the said CBI communication on the basis of which the order of termination was passed. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved of the orders passed by respondents No. 3 & 4 whereby the information asked for under the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been declined. The reasons given in the order is that the matter is subjudice before respondent No.5 i.e. Arbitrator. The information asked for was the basis on which the termination of the Retail Outlet Dealership of the petitioner granted by the Indian Oil Corporation and the same is pertaining to the recommendation of the Central Bureau of Investigation for termination of the Retail Outlet. The communication of the CBI was not directed to be provided either by the Arbitrator where the arbitration proceedings pending or by the respondents No. 3 & 4. The Respondents No. 2, 4 & 5 are none other than the officers of the Indian Oil Corporation who are interested in ensuring that the arbitration proceedings succeed and the order of termination of the Retail Outlet Dealership of the petitioner upheld. The Respondents No. 2, 4 & 5 are none other than the officers of the Indian Oil Corporation who are interested in ensuring that the arbitration proceedings succeed and the order of termination of the Retail Outlet Dealership of the petitioner upheld. The orders impugned have been challenged on the ground: (i) The orders impugned are violation of principles of natural justice as no hearing was given to the petitioner before declining the information asked for. (ii) The orders impugned have been passed more in violation of the provisions of section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 than in observance. (iii) The view taken by the Chief Information Commission has become the basis of the purpose of passing the orders impugned. 4. Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of the State of Jammu and Kashmir seeking the following reliefs:- (i) Writ of certiorari for quashing Order issued by Respondent No. 4 under reference No. PSO/RS/RTI/61294 dated: 23.03.2010 to the extent it has declined to give the petitioner the copies of the documents referred in the queries b, c, d & f indicated in the order on the ground that matter is subjudice as such it was exempted under clause 8(1) (d) & (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005; (ii) Writ of certiorari for quashing Order dated: 28.04.2010 passed by Respondent No. 3 whereby the appeal filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been disposed off rejecting the grounds urged for providing the information and upholding the order of Respondent No. 3; (iii) For issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents No. 3 & 4 to provide the copies of the information asked for; (iv) For issuance of writ of mandamus/prohibition restraining respondent No. 5 from proceedings further in the Arbitration proceedings till such time the information asked for is provided. 5. 5. In the objections filed on behalf of Respondents No. 2 to 4 i.e. Indian Oil Corporation, it is stated that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated: 23.03.2010 to the extent the answering respondents have declined to give petitioner the copies of the documents referred to in queries b, c, d and f and the order dated: 28.04.2010 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected. Petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 3 & 4 to provide the copies of the documents and if the petitioner had a grievance that the answering respondents have not provided the information in response to an application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner could prefer a complaint against the answering respondents to the Central Information Commission. Section 18(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 has conferred on the Central Information Commission all the powers of a Civil Court. It is further pleaded in the objections that when such an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner then it should be required to pursue such a remedy rather than invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court Article 226 of the Constitution. It is a settled law that the Hon’ble High Court does not act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court of Tribunal to correct the errors of fact. 6. I have considered the arguments of counsels for parties and law on the subjects. 7. Petitioner has sought certiorari for quashing Order issued by the Respondent No. 4 under reference No. PSO/RS/RTI/61294 dated: 23.03.2010 to the extent it has declined to give the petitioner and also certiorari for quashing Order dated: 28.04.2010 passed by Respondent No. 3 whereby the appeal filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been disposed off rejecting the grounds urged for providing the information and upholding the order of Respondent No. 3. 8. Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 reads as under :- “19. 8. Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 reads as under :- “19. Appeal.- (1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section of Section 7 or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officers as the case may be, in each public authority; Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. (2) ….. …. ….. …… …… …… (3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission.” 9. Bare perusal of this section, it is evident that petitioner has statutory right to file 2nd appeal against the order of respondent no.3 before authority provided under section 19 of RTI Act. 10. In Lalit kumar V. Sanhavi (dead) through legal heirs Netta Lalit Kumar Sanghavi and another Vs. Dharmadas V. Sanhgavi ( 2014 ) 7 SCC 255 ( AIR 2014 SC (Supp)1705, by a three judges bench, it has been held as under :- “By the judgment under appeal, the Bombay High Court opined that the remedy of the appellant lies in invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In our view, such a view is not in accordance with the law declared by this Court in S.B.P. & Co. v. Patel Engineering Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 618 . The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: “45. It is seen that some High Courts have proceeded on the basis that any order passed by an arbitral tribunal during arbitration, would be capable of being challenged under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. We see no warrant for such an approach. Section 37 makes certain orders of the arbitral tribunal appealable. It is seen that some High Courts have proceeded on the basis that any order passed by an arbitral tribunal during arbitration, would be capable of being challenged under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. We see no warrant for such an approach. Section 37 makes certain orders of the arbitral tribunal appealable. Under Section 34, the aggrieved party has an avenue for ventilating his grievances against the award including any in-between orders that might have been passed by the arbitral tribunal acting under Section 16 of the Act. The party aggrieved by any order of the arbitral tribunal, unless has a right of appeal under Section 37 of the Act, has to wait until the award is passed by the Tribunal. This appears to be the scheme of the Act. The arbitral tribunal is after all, the creature of a contract between the parties, the arbitration agreement, even though if the occasion arises, the Chief Justice may constitute it based on the contract between the parties. But that would not alter the status of the arbitral tribunal. It will still be a forum chosen by the parties by agreement. We, therefore, disapprove of the stand adopted by some of the High Courts that any order passed by the arbitral tribunal is capable of being corrected by the High Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.” 11. As per above judgement, any party aggrieved by any order of statutory authority, unless has a right of appeal under that Act, has to wait until the order is passed by the appellate authority. In present case also, as per the scheme of the RTI Act under section 19, 2nd appeal is provided, so this writ does not lie. 12. Further Section 23 of the Act reads as follows:- "23. Bar of jurisdiction of courts.--No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceedings in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act." 13. 12. Further Section 23 of the Act reads as follows:- "23. Bar of jurisdiction of courts.--No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceedings in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act." 13. The perusal of the provisions of Section 23 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, extracted above, reveals that, no Court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding, in respect of any order, made under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and no such order shall be called, in question, otherwise than by way of an appeal, under the Right to Information Act, 2005. In present case also, the complainant/petitioner was aggrieved against the non-supply of information, aforesaid, by the Public Information Officer/Opposite Party, in pursuance of the application, moved by him, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the remedy which lay with him, was to file an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, under the said Act, praying for the supply of information. After availing of such remedy, even if, he still felt aggrieved, he had the remedy of filing the second appeal, under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Once a particular route has been defined under the Right to Information Act, 2005, he was required to seek further remedies under that very Act. In view of the specific bar created by Section 23 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, this Writ petition is also not maintainable. Even otherwise, no fundamental right of petitioner has been violated, because orders reveal that these have been passed on the grounds that matter was sub-judice before arbitrator and secondly certain information sought is exempted under clause 8 (1) (d) of the RTI Act as it pertains to commercial transactions. 14. In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.