JUDGMENT : The petitioner is mainly aggrieved by the delay in considering Ext.P-8, which is a second appeal submitted by him before the 1st respondent-State Information Commission under the provisions of Sec.19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The case of the petitioner is that for properly defending him in the criminal proceedings, wherein he has been arrayed as accused, he requires certain documents in connection with Crime Nos.35/2011 & 40/2011 of Palakkad Kasaba Police Station (which was later transferred to the C.B.I for investigation). In that regard he had submitted Ext.P-1 application dated 20.11.2017 before the 4th respondent-Public Information Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that the request made by him for disclosure of the information sought for, has been rejected by the original authority as well as first appellate authority. The petitioner would contend that the information sought for by him in Ext.P-1 application would come under Sec.5 of the Right to Information Act and would not attract any of the exempted categories as provided in Secs.8 & 9 of the said Act. The petitioner has now preferred Ext.P-8 second appeal memorandum dated 8.2.2018 before the 1st respondent-State Information Commission as per the enabling provisions contained in Sec.19(3) of the Right to Information Act. It is in the light of these factual averments, that the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) seeking the following reliefs: “(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P8 Statutory 2nd Appeal filed by the petitioner under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, which is pending before him; (b) direct the respondents to furnish the list of documents and copies of the documents shown in the said list as handed over to the CBI with respect to Crime Nos.35/2011 and 40/2011 of Kasaba Police Station, Palakkad, as requested for by the petitioner in Exhibit P1, as early as possible; (c) Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the particular facts and circumstances of this case, including the cost of these proceedings.” 2. Heard Smt. M.A. Vaheeda Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. M. Ajay, learned Standing Counsel for State Information Commission, appearing for R-1 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for R-2 to R-4. 3. Heard Smt. M.A. Vaheeda Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. M. Ajay, learned Standing Counsel for State Information Commission, appearing for R-1 and the learned Government Pleader appearing for R-2 to R-4. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would place reliance on the provisions contained in Sec.19(6) of the Right to Information Act to contend that the 1st respondent-State Information Commission is statutorily mandated to dispose of a second appeal within a maximum period of 45 days, etc. Per contra, Sri. M. Ajay, learned Standing Counsel for R-1 would submit that time limit stipulated under sub-sec (6) of Sec.19 is only in respect of an appeal envisaged under sub-sec.(1) or sub-sec.(2) of Sec.19 as the case may be and is not applicable in the case of a second appeal which could be filed before the State Information Commission as envisaged under sub-sec (3) of Sec.19. Sec.19 reads as follows: “Section 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 (3) of Section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or the 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 the State Public Information Officer, 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) Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under Section 11 to disclose third party information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order. (2) Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under Section 11 to disclose third party information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order. (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: Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. (4) If the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, against which an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to that third party. (5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request. (6) An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing. xxx xxx xxx” A reading of Sec.19(1) would indicate that the appeal provision envisaged therein is in respect of non-receipt of a decision under sub-sec (1) or clause (a) of Sec.7(3) or where one is aggrieved by the decision of Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, in which cases, such aggrieved parties could prefer an appeal within 30 days before the designated appellate authority concerned. Therefore, the appeals envisaged in Sec.19(1) could be broadly termed as first appeal before the departmental designated first appellate authority concerned. That appeal could be filed by the applicant if he/she is so aggrieved. Therefore, the appeals envisaged in Sec.19(1) could be broadly termed as first appeal before the departmental designated first appellate authority concerned. That appeal could be filed by the applicant if he/she is so aggrieved. But, Sec.19(1) does not envisage an appeal in cases where third parties are involved as in Sec.11. Whereas Sec.19(2) would stipulate that where an appeal is preferred against an order of the Public Information Officer concerned under Sec.11 to disclose third party information, then the affected third party concerned is also given the right to prefer first appeal within 30 days. It will be relevant in this context to refer to Secs.19(2) & 11 of the Right to Information Act, which deal with third party information, which read as follows: “Section 19: Appeal.- xxx xxx xxx (2) Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under Section 11 to disclose third party information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order. xxx xxx xxx Section 11: Third party information.- (1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party. (2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under subsection (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under Section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub-section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party. (4) A notice given under sub-section (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under Section 19 against the decision. 4. Whereas sub-sec (3) of Sec.19 provides a second appeal against the first appellate proceedings under Sec.19(1) and such second appeal is to be preferred within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, as the case may be. So it is the first appeals as envisaged in Secs.19(1) & 19(2), which are the subject matter of the time frame stipulated as envisaged in Sub-sec (6) of Sec.19. Therefore, Sri. M. Ajay, learned Standing Counsel for R-1, is right in contending that the time limit envisaged in Sec.19(6) is applicable only in the case of appeals envisaged in subsections (1) & (2) of Sec.19. Therefore, Sri. M. Ajay, learned Standing Counsel for R-1, is right in contending that the time limit envisaged in Sec.19(6) is applicable only in the case of appeals envisaged in subsections (1) & (2) of Sec.19. However, Smt. M.A. Vaheeda Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance on the proviso to Sec.7(1) of the Right to Information Act, which reads as follows: Sec.7: Disposal of request.- (1) Subject to the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 5 or the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under Section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in Sections 8 and 9: Provided that where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request. xxx xxx xxx” 5. On the basis of the provision contained in proviso to Sec.7(1), the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the information sought for by the petitioner is in respect of a criminal proceedings initiated against him and the said information would certainly come within the ambit of proviso to Sec.7(1). On this basis it is contended that the first appeal should also be expeditiously disposed of by the appellate authority concerned and they have a explicit duty to render a decision on the second appeal with all expedition, etc. The question as to whether information sought by an accused in respect of certain matters in the investigation, in which the police authorities could also take the shield under Sec.8(1)(h), would come within the ambit of Sec.7(1) proviso are all matters not to be decided by this Court, at this stage. 6. Sri. The question as to whether information sought by an accused in respect of certain matters in the investigation, in which the police authorities could also take the shield under Sec.8(1)(h), would come within the ambit of Sec.7(1) proviso are all matters not to be decided by this Court, at this stage. 6. Sri. M. Ajay, learned Standing Counsel for R-1 would submit that though the Act envisages full quorum of State Information Commission consisting of 7 members, including the State Information Commission, many of the vacancies in the posts of Information Commissioners in the State Information Commission were vacant for quite sometime and the work of the Commission are mainly done by the State Information Commissioner and that it is only recently that 4 members have been appointed by the State Government. That back lag and arrears in the work of the 1st respondent-Commission has occurred due to such unavoidable circumstances and that all endeavours will be made by the State Information Commission to dispose of Ext.P-8 appeal within 2 months. The said submission made by the Commission appears to be quite fair and reasonable considering the above said facts and circumstances pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel. To a specific question posed by this Court as to whether the trial in the criminal case in question has commenced or not, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she is not aware about that situation. In these circumstances, it may not be right and proper for this Court to fix a time limit which would cause difficulties to the functioning of the State Information Commission. Accordingly, taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered that the 1st respondent-Commission will take all reasonable endeavours possible under the circumstances to ensure early consideration and disposal of Ext.P-8 appeal without much delay, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. The learned Standing Counsel for R-1 State Information Commission is requested to furnish a copy of this judgment to that party for necessary information and compliance. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Petition (Civil) will stand finally disposed of.