JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ. 1. Heard Shri Amit Kr. Singh Bhadauriya as well as Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the opposite party No. 1, Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 and Shri Shree Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 4 and 5. 2. Since, the point involved in the present writ petition is trivial in nature, so the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. Notice to the opposite party No. 6 is dispensed with. 4. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following main relief’s: "(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 from proceeding with the adjudicating of Appeal No. S-11-2431/A/2017 (Labir Singh v. Information Officer D.V.V.N.L., Agra). (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari setting aside the impugned order dated 15.5.2019 passed by the State Information Commissioner/respondent No. 2." 5. Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 has raised a preliminary objection that in respect of the grievances raised in the present writ petition, petitioner has got remedy to move an application for recall under Rule 12 of Uttar Pradesh Right to Information Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2015), which is quoted herein below: "(1) The Commission, on an application submitted by any party aggrieved by an order of the Commission, may recall its order on the ground of any of the following procedure defects: (i) The order was passed by the Commission without hearing the applicant for no fault of his; or (ii) The Commission heard and decided the matter on a date other than the one fixed for hearing of the same and the applicant could not attend the hearing for no fault of his. (2) The applicant may submit recall application within thirty days from the date of knowledge of the order of the Commission. (3) If the Commission is of the view that prima facie there is no merit in the application, it may reject the recall application. (2) The applicant may submit recall application within thirty days from the date of knowledge of the order of the Commission. (3) If the Commission is of the view that prima facie there is no merit in the application, it may reject the recall application. (4) If the Commission is of the view that the matter requires hearing then before passing any order on such recall application, the Commission shall issue notice to all parties to the proceeding to give them an opportunity of being heard." 6. However, in view of the provisions of Rule 12 of Rules, 2015, the writ petition is not maintainable, is liable to be dismissed on the said point. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the above said facts and requests that petitioner may be permitted to move an application for recall under the Rule 12 of Rules, 2015 and till the recall application is not decided, opposite party No. 2 may be directed not to proceed any proceeding of Appeal No. S-11-2431/A/2017. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 9. After going through the provisions of Rule 12 of Rules, 2015, the plea taken by Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 is well founded as the petitioner has got remedy to move an application before the opposite party No. 2 in respect to the grievances raised in the present writ petition. 10. 9. After going through the provisions of Rule 12 of Rules, 2015, the plea taken by Shri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 is well founded as the petitioner has got remedy to move an application before the opposite party No. 2 in respect to the grievances raised in the present writ petition. 10. Thus, taking into consideration the Rule 12 of Rules, 2015 as well as law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of C.B.S.E. v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 : 2011 (6) AWC 5567 (SC); Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner and others, (2013) 1 SCC 212 : 2012 (6) AWC 6400 (SC), by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sangam Transport and another v. State Information Commission and others, 2014 (6) AWC 6154 and by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Shri Chander Sekhar, (2012) 188 DLT 766 (DB), writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to move an application in respect to his grievances raised in the present writ petition by invoking the provisions of Rule 12 of Rules, 2015 before the opposite party No. 2 and the same is decided first. Thereafter the matter involved in Appeal No. S-11-2431/A/2017 shall be adjudicated by the opposite party No. 2 on merit.