Dismissed

Jamuna Kalo v. State Information Commnr., Odisha

Orissa HC26 Jul 2022WP(C)/17388/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the closure of an RTI complaint against a Cooperative Bank, the High Court observed that the applicability of the RTI Act to such banks is sub-judice pending a specific appeal. Consequently, the impugned order of the State Information Commission could not be executed, but the petitioner was allowed to file a fresh complaint if that court is ultimately held compliant.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make a fresh complaint if the Bank is held amenable to RTI Act.

Jamuna Kalo Vs State Information Commnr., Odisha — RTI and Transparency | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 17388 OF 2022

¶2

Jamuna Kalo

¶3

.... Petitioner

¶4

Mr. Saroj Kumar Dash, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. State Information Commission, Odisha Opp. Parties and others

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

26.07.2022

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶14

The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 13^th May, 2022 passed by the State Information Commission, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.1 in Complaint Case No.91 of 2020.

¶15

A complaint was made against the Public Information Officer-cum-Branch Manager of Sambalpur District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Kuchinda Branch-Opposite Party No.4, which has been held to be amenable to the provision of Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) by this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.35609 and 35611 of 2021. The issue with regard to applicability of the Act to the Co-operative Banks is sub-judice before this Court in W.A. No.904 of 2021 and operation of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.30704 of 2021 has been stayed vide order dated 7^th April, 2022. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the complaint case was closed and disposed of by the Commission.

¶16

Page 1 of 2

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Commission ought to have waited till disposal of the writ appeal. The Petitioner is approaching the Authority under the Act to get information since 2014. Due to closure of the complaint case, she is seriously prejudiced.

¶19

Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of Hon’ble Single Judge holding that the Sambalpur District Central Co-operative Bank is amenable to the Act has been stayed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.904 of 2021. As such, the order passed in W.P.(C) No.30704 of 2021 or any order passed relying upon the said order cannot be given effect to.

¶20

In view of the above, I find no infirmity in the impugned order. However, the Petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh complaint, if it is held that Sambalpur District Cooperative Central Bank is amenable to the provisions under the Act.

¶21

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶22

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper

¶23

application.

¶24

¶25

Page 2 of 2

Jamuna Kalo v. State Information Commnr., Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamuna Kalo v. State Information Commnr., Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumita Mohanty Vs Naba Kumar Mohanty

Pramila Sahu Vs Musa Behera

Trilochan Vs Swarnalata

Jamuna Kalo Vs State Information Commnr., Odisha

Bhakta Charan Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Madhusudan Panda Vs Div. Forest Officer, Jeypore Forest Div.