Judicial intervention is not warranted if there is an available statutory remedy under the Right to Information Act.

The above-captioned writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

i) Issue a writ of certiorari and to quash Exhibit P3;

ii) To declare that Exhibit P3 refusal is contrary to the right of the petitioner guaranteed under Right to Information Act ;

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or orders directing the 1st respondent to supply materials sought in exhibit P2 within time frame.

2. The petitioner states that she completed her Post Graduate Course in M.A English Language and Literature at the Gurudev Arts and Science College, Mathil, a college affiliated with Kannur University. Despite having attended and performed well in the exams held in October 2021, she was unable to obtain passing grades for the linguistics paper. The application for revaluation submitted by her was rejected by Ext. P1 Revaluation Result Memo, wherein it is stated that there is no change. In the said circumstances, she submitted Ext. P2 application under the Right to Information Act , seeking a copy of the answer sheet of the paper in respect of which she failed to secure pass marks and also a copy of the mark sheet/scorecard/tabulation sheet and the revaluation result of the mark sheet/scorecard. The petitioner asserts the 2nd respondent, in clear violation of the provisions of the Act, declined her request by Ext. P3 order.

It is the case of the petitioner that the reasons offered by the 2nd respondent to decline Ext. P2 is unsustainable, and according to her, the provisions of the regulations issued by the University cannot override the provisions of the Right to Information Act since statutory rights prevail over a regulation.

3. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the order rejecting the request for information was passed on 21.11.2022. The learned Standing Counsel would refer to Section 19 of the Right to Information Act , and it is submitted that the petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy, and there is no reason why this writ petition should be entertained.

4. Sri. Aravind, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the reasons given for rejection will not fall under either Section 8 or Section 9, and in that view of the matter, this Court will be well justified in issuing directions by invoking the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. I have considered the submissions advanced and perused the records.

6. Section 19 (1) of the Act reads as under:

19(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.

As is clear from the statutory provisions, the petitioner has an equally efficacious remedy in preferring an appeal under Section 19 of the Act. As held by the Apex Court inMc Dowell and Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner [ 1985 KLT 428 ], the Appellate Authority becomes vested with the legal jurisdiction of adjudicating on the complaint, and the authority should not, by this Court issuing an order of certiorari, be divested of its jurisdiction of adjudication on the order, which becomes the subject matter of appeal before it. The officer is also empowered to condone the delay if any if the petitioner is able to satisfy that she was prevented by any sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. The petitioner has also not been able to show that