Manoranjan Sahoo Vs State of Odisha

The present writ application has been filed with a prayer to quash the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the State Information Commission, Odisha in Second Appeal No.665 of 2024 under Annexure-4 to the writ application.

¶17

amit

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that initially the petitioner submitted an

¶19

application under the RTI Act before the designated PIO seeking certain information on his application dated 20.10.2023. Since no information has been provided within the statutory period of 30 days, the petitioner had preferred First Appeal No.01 of 2024 before the appellate authority. The said First Appeal was disposed of on 16.01.2024. Although the State Information Commission found the allegations to be grievous in nature, however, finally Second Appeal No.665 of 2024 was disposed of by observing that the appellant, if so advised, may approach the High Court regarding the loss sustained by the State Exchequer while going for the construction.

¶20

Assailing the order passed in the Second Appeal of the State Information Commission, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has sought for information under the RTI Act, however, such information was not provided to the petitioner, although the Second Appeal has been disposed of by the State Information Commission.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State Information Commission on the other hand contended that the Second Appeal has been disposed of by passing a speaking order, therefore, the same needs no interference by this Court. He further contended that in the event the petitioner has not received the information, it is open to him to approach the PIO again along with a copy of the order of the State

¶22

2

¶23

Information Commission dated 28.10.2024. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State Information Commission contended that the writ petition may be dismissed.

¶24

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the background of the case, this Court is of the view that while the Commission is statutorily required to ensure that the complainant is provided with the information as has been sought for while disposing of the Second Appeal. In the event the order of the Commission is not complied with by the parties, the Commission is authorized to impose penalty on the defaulting officer. Since the petitioner has not been provided with the information by him, this Court thinks it proper to set aside the impugned order dated 28.10.2024 0passed by the Commission and remands the matter back for reconsideration by the learned Commission. In the event the petitioner approaches the learned Commission within two weeks along with a certified copy of today’s order, the learned Commission shall do well to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible by passing a reasoned order.

¶25

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petitioner stands disposed of.

¶26

Signature Not Verified

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 10-Apr-2025 16:24:37

¶28

(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge

¶29

3

Manoranjan Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoranjan Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhashree Suchismita @ Sahoo Vs Chairman Cum Managing Director, Optcl., Bbsr

Urmila Mohanta Vs State of Odisha

Narayan Patra Vs State of Odisha

Bharat Kumar Naik Vs State of Odisha

Bibhuti Bhusan Pattnaik Vs Director, Horticulture, Govt of Odisha

Banchhanidhi Pradhan Vs State of Odisha