MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J.

This is a Writ Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petitioners Goa Cricket Association, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, and its General Secretary have challenged the order dated 07.10.2010 of the State Chief Information Commissioner allowing the complaint No. 5181 SCIC/2010. The State Chief Information Commissioner after overruling the preliminary objection raised by the complainant has directed the Goa Cricket Association to furnish the information to the complainant sought by him by his application dated 12.07.2010.

2. Shri M. Sonak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has challenged the order on the following grounds

(i) The impugned order is without jurisdiction as the State Chief Information Commissioner by himself could not have disposed of the application. Relying on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Public Information Officer & Anr. V/s Manohar Parrikar & anr., 2012 (1) Bom. C.R. 558 : (2012(2) ALL MR 510), the learned counsel further submitted that the State Information Commission has to be a multimember body consisting of the State Chief Information Commissioner and at least one (but not exceeding ten) State Information Commissioner/so The State Information Commissioner cannot function with only one member.

(ii) The Public Information Officer of the Sports Authority of Goa had by a communication dated 20.08.2010 rejected the application of the complainant for certain information. If at all the complainant was aggrieved by the said communication, the remedy available to the complainant was to file an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. In case, that decision were to go against the complainant, then further remedy to the complainant would be second appeal before the State Information Commission. However, the complainant filed the complaint before the State Information Commission without availing remedy before the First Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act. Strong reliance is placed on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Reserve Bank of India v/s Rui Ferreira & Ors, 2012(2) Bom. C.R. 784: (2011(6) ALL MR 531).

(iii) The Commission erred in relying upon the so called guidelines published in the Official Gazette, Government of Goa, dated 08.07.2010 for the purpose of holding that all the sports organizations (Sports Clubs/State Sports Associations) recognised by the Sports Authority of Goa shall be covered under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. The said notification has no sanctity of law under the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('the Act'). The only provision under which the appropriate Government can lay down the guidelines is in the form of making rules under Section 27 of the Act to carry out the provisions of the Act. However, the guidelines have not been issued under Section 27 of the Act.

(iv) Even otherwise the impugned decision of the Commissioner holding that the Goa Cricket Association is a public authority within the meaning of RTI Act is erroneous and contrary to law.

(v) In any view of the matter, the information sought was not required to be supplied to the complainant.

3. On the other hand, respondent no. 6 Shri Aires Rodrigues (now respondent no. 4) has opposed the petition and supported the impugned decision. Shri Rodrigues has submitted that the impugned decision does not call for any interference, as the Commission has considered all the relevant aspects, including the question of jurisdiction. It is also submitted that this Court would not sit in appeal over the decision of the Commission under RTI Act.

4. As regards the first contention, a Division Bench of this Court has already held in Public Information Officer & Anr. V/s. that the State Information Commissioner is a multi-member body and that the Commission cannot consist of only one member. The Commission must consist of State Chief Information Commissioner and at least one more State I