ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader. 2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the relief as follows: “to issue Writ or direction preferably Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records and set aside Order of the Respondent No.1 dated 05.11.2021 in Complaint No.5527/SIC-SK/2020 for being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to the scheme & the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 and also violative of the principles of natural justice & voilative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India”. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows: a) The 2nd respondent made an application to the Public Information Officer, High Court, under RTI Act, 2005 seeking certain information from the High Court on eight points. b) The 2nd respondent filed complaint before the 1st respondent alleging that he was constrained to approach the 1st respondent as the information sought by him was not provided by the Public Information Officer, High Court for the State of Telangana. c) Though both the respondents and PIO-Registrar (Judicial-I) were not present, the 1st respondent on its own proceeded to pass impugned order by making certain adverse comments and directed the PIO, High Court to furnish information to the 2nd respondent within two weeks. d) The 1st respondent failed to appreciate that the nature of the information sought by the 2nd respondent is such that the complaint itself ought not to have been entertained by the 1st respondent. Hence, this writ petition is filed. PERUSED THE RECORD 4. Para No.9 of the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent reads as under: 9. “In reply to Paras 5 to 10, it is submitted that since the information sought by the 2nd respondent is not furnished within 30 days as per the RTI Act, he approached the Commission for redressal of his grievance. The answering Respondent has issued notice to the Public Information Officer to appear before it on 05.11.2021. No affidavit was filed by the Public Information Officer that the information sought is in the domain of administrative side of the Hon’ble High Court and they are sensitive or confidential in nature and cannot be furnished to dispel the onus of proof cast on the State Public Information Officer U/sec.19 (5) of the Act, to enable to dispose off the complaint, citing the reasons for not disposing off the same. In the absence of the aforesaid, as neither the Public Information Officer nor his/her authorized representative have appeared and gave any information or sought adjournment of the matter, on 05.11.2021, the answering Respondent directed the Public Information Officer to furnish the information sought by the 2nd Respondent as per the Act, within two weeks, from the date of receipt of the order. The order dated 05.11.2021 in Complaint No.5524/SIC-SK/2020 is perfectly valid and justifiable. It is pertinent to mention here that the 1st respondent has disposed off many appeals/complaints during his tenure without any blemish or adverse remarks, strictly adhering to the provisions of RTI Act. If the orders dated 05.11.2021 exceeds the jurisdiction of the answering Respondent, a lenient view may be taken and close the proceedings against it”. 5. Section 16 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 reads as under: 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 State Public Information Officer, as the case my 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 Officer as the case may be, in each public authority”. 6. 6. Section 18 of Right to Information Act, 2005 reads as under: Powers and functions and Information Commissions – Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Comission or State Information Commission, as the case my be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person: a. who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, refused to accept his or her application for information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or senior office specified in sub-section (1) of Section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be; b. who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act; c. who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time-limit under this Act”. 7. The relevant portion of the order impugned of the respondent No.1 dated 05.11.2021 of respondent No.1 vide Complaint No.5527/SIC-SK/2020 reads as under: “Sri Md. Maheeboob Ali, Khammam District has filed a complaint dated 27.06.2020 which was received by this Commission on 06.07.2020 for not getting the information sought by him from the PIO/O/o the Registrar Judicial, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. The brief facts of the case as per the Complaint and other records received along with it are that the Complainant herein filed a application dated 20.02.2020 before the PIO requesting to furnish the information under Sec. 6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, on the following points mentioned in his application annexed; 1. As per APJMS rules the how much time taken to complete the recruitment process. 2. 1:10 candidates interviewed in all notifications of 1/2015 to 6/2015 in the month of July, 2016 and conducted oral interviews in Khammam District Court. 3. After completion of Oral Interviews, the Hon’ble District Judge submitted for approval to the Hon’ble High Court, Hyderabad. Kindly supply the Merit list copy of Khammam District court, pertaining notifications of 2015. 4. 2. 1:10 candidates interviewed in all notifications of 1/2015 to 6/2015 in the month of July, 2016 and conducted oral interviews in Khammam District Court. 3. After completion of Oral Interviews, the Hon’ble District Judge submitted for approval to the Hon’ble High Court, Hyderabad. Kindly supply the Merit list copy of Khammam District court, pertaining notifications of 2015. 4. After submission of merit list of Khammam District Court the number Administrative Judges Place before the merit list of Khammam Unit. Each & Every administrative Judge’s action taken over in the merit list. Furnished those reports. 5. In the Khammam District court site all the notifications of 2015 have been cancelled due the Hon’ble High Court “as per administrative reasons” vide District notification Dis No.4273 dated 07.08.2019. What are the administrative reasons for cancelling the recruitment? Pertaining notifications of 2015, Were not – mentioned. 6. My WP No.18864/2019 was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court and its ordered “The petitioner do not have a civil right or a fundamental right of appointment” Explained in this regard”. Stating that the PIO has not furnished the required information even after 30 days of filing his application, he preferred this Complaint before the Commission requesting to arrange to furnish the information sought by him u/s 18(1) of the RTI Act, 2005. In view of the above, the Complaint was taken on file and Notices are issued to both the parties for hearing on 05.11.2021 at 12:00 P.M. The case is called on 05.11.2021. The complainant is absent. The PIO / O/o the Registrar Judicial, High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad is absent. Perused the material papers available on record and observed that the complainant filed 6(1) application dated 20.02.2020 seeking information on 7 points and the PIO neither furnished the information nor appeared before the Commission for the hearing held on 05.11.2021. The Commission took a serious view against the PIO for not furnishing the information to the complainant within the stipulated period of 30 days as per Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 and for not appearing before the Commission for the hearing held on 05.11.2021. The Commission warns the PIO not to repeat such lapses in future and strictly adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act 2005. The Commission warns the PIO not to repeat such lapses in future and strictly adhere to the provisions of the RTI Act 2005. The Commission directs the PIO to furnish the information to the complainant (keeping in view of Section 8,9,10&11 of RTI Act 2005) within Two (2) Weeks from the date of receipt of this order through Registered post with acknowledgment due and to report compliance to the Commission”. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 8. A bare perusal of the contents of the complaint dated 20.02.2020 of the respondent No.2 addressed to the Public Information Officer High Court under Right to Information Act – 2005 dated 20.02.2020 clearly indicates that the respondent No.2 sought information from the High Court on six points which reflect in the order impugned of the 1st respondent dated 05.11.2021. This Court opines that the respondent No.1 failed to appreciate the nature of the information sought by the respondent No.2 and this Court further opines that respondent No.2 ought not have entertained the complaint itself. 9. The Apex Court in its Judgment of Chief Information and Commissioner Vs Manipur and another dated 12.12.2011 reported in 2011 15 SCC Para 1 at Para Nos.27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 39 and 51 observed as under : “27. The question falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. 28. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decisions dated 30.05.2007 and 14.08.2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is no empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant. 29. If we look at Section 18 of the Act it appears that the powers under Section 18 have been categorized under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 18(1). 29. If we look at Section 18 of the Act it appears that the powers under Section 18 have been categorized under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 18(1). under clauses (a) to (f) of Section 18(1) of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may receive and inquire into complaint of any person who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act [Section 18(1)(b)] or has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under the Act [Section 18(1)(e)] or has not been given a response to a request for information or access o information or has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time-limits specified under the Act [Section 18(1)(c)]. We are not concerned with the provision of Section 18(1)(a) or 18(1)(d) of the Act. Here we are concerned with the residuary provision under Section 18(1)(f) of the Act. 30. Under Section 18(3) of the Ac the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, while inquiring into any manner in this section has the same powers as are vested in a civil Court while trying a suit in respect of certain matters specified in Sections 18(3)(a) to (f). Under Section 18(4) which is a non obstante clause, the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case maybe, may examine any record to which the Act applies and which is under the control of the public authority and such records cannot be withheld from it on any ground. 32. In the facts of the case, the appellant after having applied for information under section 6 and then not having received any reply thereto, it must be deemed that he has been refused the information. The said situation is covered by section 7 of the Act. The remedy for such a person who has been refused the information is provided under section 19 of the Act. A reading of section 19(1) of the act makes it clear. 39. The said situation is covered by section 7 of the Act. The remedy for such a person who has been refused the information is provided under section 19 of the Act. A reading of section 19(1) of the act makes it clear. 39. The nature of the power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redress in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that Section 7 read with Section 19 provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. The contention of the appellant that information can be accessed through Section 18 is contrary to the express provision of Section 19 of the Act. 51. This Court, therefore, directs the appellants to file appeals under Section 19 of the Act in respect of two requests by them for obtaining information vide applications dated 09.02.2007 and 19.05.2007 within a period of four weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed following the statutory procedure by the appellants, the same should be considered on merits by the appellate authority without insisting on the period of limitation”. 10. If such an appeal is filed following the statutory procedure by the appellants, the same should be considered on merits by the appellate authority without insisting on the period of limitation”. 10. A bare perusal of the material documents filed by the petitioner in support of the present writ petition clearly indicates that the respondent No.2 approached the registered General Public Information Officer for High Court, State of Telangana, Hyderabad vide his application dated 20.02.2020, filed under Section 61 of Right to Information Act, 2005 and thereafter when the respondent No.2 failed to obtain the information as sought for, the 2nd respondent had filed a complaint vide complaint no.5527/SIC-SK/2020 dated 27.06.2020 before the Telangana State Information Commission, for not disclosing the information sought by the 2nd respondent from P.I.O i.e., Registered Judicial High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad and a bare perusal of the order impugned dated 05.11.2021 indicates that the respondent No.1 herein took serious view against P.I.O. for not furnishing the information to the respondent No.2 within the stipulated period of 30 days as per Section 71 of the Right to Information Act – 2005 and for not appearing before the commissioner for the hearing held on 05.11.2021 and further directed the P.I.O to furnish the information to the respondent No.2, keeping in view of Section 8, 9, 10 and 11 of Right to Information Act 2005 within (2) two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 11. This Court opines that the respondent No.1 has not given any reasons in the order impugned dated 05.11.2021 in the present writ petition directing the Public Information Officer to furnish the information which has been sought for by the respondent No.2 and further fails to examine the nature of the complaint and the nature of the information sought for by respondent no. 2 and respondent No.1 admittedly did not have the power to pass the order impugned directly under Section 18 as held by the Apex Court at Para 39 of Judgment in Chief Information and Commissioner Vs Manipur and another reported in (2011) 15 SCC 1 extracted above. 12. 2 and respondent No.1 admittedly did not have the power to pass the order impugned directly under Section 18 as held by the Apex Court at Para 39 of Judgment in Chief Information and Commissioner Vs Manipur and another reported in (2011) 15 SCC 1 extracted above. 12. Taking into consideration the above referred facts and circumstances and law laid down by the Apex Court (referred to and extracted above) in Judgment reported in 2011(15) SCC 1 in Chief Information and Commissioner v Manipur and another, the writ petition is allowed and the order impugned dated 05.11.2021 in Complaint No.5527/SIC-SK/2020 of the 1st respondent is set aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to approach the competent authority and file an appeal under Section 19 of the Act within a period of (2) two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. If such an appeal is filed following the statutory procedure by respondent No.2 herein, the same shall be considered on merits by the competent authority, without insisting on the period of limitation and appropriate orders passed, in accordance to law, within a reasonable period. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.