Petitioner filed writ petition to quash an RTI order and seek information. Court noted no applicant appeared and disposed of petition after seven-year lapse.
Petition disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.C. NO.11876 of 2012
5 17.01.2020
None appears for the petitioner at the time of call. Heard Mr. B.K. Dash, learned counsel for opposite party no.1.
Perused the record. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order dated 13.01.2012 passed by opposite party no.1 in Second Appeal No.153 of 2009 and further seeks direction to supply information covered under query No.1 and 2 of paragraph-3 of the order under Annexure-1.
Mr. B.K. Dash, learned counsel for opposite party no.1 contended that since the State Chief Information Commissioner was not satisfied with the affidavit filed by the PIO, he directed the PIO for filing of another affidavit from the custodian of records clearly stating that the requested information in respect of query No.1 and 2 of the petitioner is not available and such affidavit should be filed within 10 days of receiving the order and closed the proceeding vide order dated 13.01.2012.
In view of the such position, this Court is not inclined to reopen the matter after a lapse of seven years. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
…..…………………………
Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.
Alok
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be reopened after a lapse of seven years regarding a request to supply information.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Opposite Party No.1
Dr. B.R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
