Disposed

Sadananda Nayak v. the State Information Commissioner, Bbsr

Orissa HC22 Apr 2024WA/150/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Intra-court appeal against dismissal of a writ seeking supply of RTI information. The Division Bench held successive writs were impermissible; violation of an earlier order could be raised in contempt, and the appellant had a first-appeal remedy under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act.

What did the court decide?

Appellant permitted to invoke Section 19(1) of the RTI Act by filing a first appeal.

Sadananda Nayak Vs the State Information Commissioner… — RTI and Transparency | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.A. No. 150 of 2024

¶3

Sadananda Nayak

¶4

Appellant

¶5

Mr. Sarbeswar Behera, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

…. The State Information Commissioner, Respondents Bhubaneswar and Others

¶8

Mr. M.K. Khuntia, Addl. Government Advocate

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

22.04.2024

This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

¶16

The appellant in the present intra-Court appeal has put to challenge an order dated 03.01.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.40301 of 2023.

¶17

From the pleadings on record and submission advanced on behalf of the appellant, it transpires that the appellant had earlier made an application before the Public Information Officer (PIO) for supply of certain information. As the said information was not supplied, he had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. He had to approach second appellate authority as the first appellant authority also not passed any order. The petitioner-appellant had thereafter approached this Court by filing a writ petition giving rise to W.P.(C) No.21240 of 2023. This Court by an order dated 12.07.2023 disposed of the said writ petition with an observation that if the petitioner made a fresh application for supply of the

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

documents, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. Further, the case of the appellant is that pursuant to the said observation made by this Court, the appellant had made a fresh application for supply of the information before PIO but the PIO supplied such documents/information which were not sought for by the appellant.

¶20

Learned Single Judge noted in the impugned order that the appellant had remedy under Section 19(2) of the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) by filing a first appeal. With the said observation the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by the impugned order.

¶21

Assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that Section 19(2) of the RTI Act has no application in the present facts and circumstances as the appellant was not seeking the information regarding third party rather the information which he had sought related to the appellant himself.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, submitted that an appeal would lie under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act by filing first appeal instead of Section 19(2) thereof.

¶23

From the reliefs sought in the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner sought for a direction from this Court to direct the PIO to supply information as per the observation made by this Court vide order dated 12.07.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.21240 of 2023. Such relief was not required to be entertained by the learned Single

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

Judge. If according to the appellant, there was any violation of the Court’s order dated 12.07.2023, he could have preferred a contempt application. There was no question of successive writs being issued by this Court. Secondly, if the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant as noted above is accepted, he had right of appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act instead of Section 19(2) thereof.

¶26

In such view of the matter, this intra-Court appeal is disposed of with an observation that the appellant may invoke Section 19(1) of the RTI Act by filing a first appeal.

¶27

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice

¶28

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶29

SK Jena/Secy.

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA Designation: SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 25-Apr-2024 14:35:56

¶32

Page 3 of 3

Sadananda Nayak v. the State Information Commissioner, Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadananda Nayak v. the State Information Commissioner, Bbsr

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikash B.Sc Nursing College, Balasore Vs State of Odisha

Bikash Swain Vs Krushna Chandra Khatua

Pratima Pradhan Vs Susanta Kumar Das, Director, Secondary Education, Bbsr

State of Odisha Vs Shakti Prasad Dehuri

State of Odisha Vs Gopinath Swain

Rajkishore Barik Vs State of Odisha