SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ori) 758

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
V. NARASINGH, J.
Hemanta Nayak – Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and Ors. – Opposite Parties
W.P(C) No.12399 of 2024
Decided On : 09-10-2025 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties :Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA, Mr. B.K Dash, Advocate

Non-compliance with the Right to Information Act undermines the principles of transparency and accountability, warranting judicial intervention when state authorities provide contradictory information.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 6, 19(1), 19(3), 19(7), and 23 - Writ petition filed challenging the order of the State Information Commissioner which improperly closed the proceedings regarding the petitioner’s request for information regarding encroachment - The Court held that the State's contradictory assertions demonstrated apathy and a disregard for transparency mandated under the Act - The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh consideration. (Paras 24-25)

(B) Transparency and Accountability in Governance - The Act mandates a duty on Public Information Officers to furnish requested information, ensuring citizens' rights to access information crucial for democracy - Any failure to provide information undermines the objectives of the Act as seen in the petitioner's unresolved representation regarding land encroachment. (Paras 14-15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, having represented to authorities regarding illegal encroachment on government land since 2017, faced inaction and lack of information despite compliance requests under the RTI Act. After appeals, the State Information Commission, incorrectly relying on the authority's claims, dropped the matter. (Paras 4-8)

Findings of Court:
The court found the State Information Commission's acceptance of the authorities’ contradictory positions unjustifiable and symptomatic of bureaucratic red tape, undermining the citizen's right to information as prescribed under the Act. (Paras 24-25)

Issues: The main issues involved were whether the State Information Commission's order was justified and if the petitioner was rightfully denied requested information regarding land encroachment and the handling of RTI applications. (Paras 23, 25)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the State Information Commission failed to scrutinize the verification of the authorities' claims regarding information availability, thus the dismissal of the petitioner's application was set aside for a fresh examination in line with RTI principles. (Paras 24-25)

Result: The impugned order quashed and the matter remitted back to the State Information Commissioner for fresh adjudication with costs awarded against the State. (Paras 27-28)

JUDGMENT :

V. Narasingh, J.

1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.7.
2. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 26.02.2024 passed by the State Information Commissioner in disposing of the Second Appeal No.291 of 2019 of the Petitioner, vide Annexure-16, by which the proceeding was closed, the present writ petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. The genesis of the grievance is that the Petitioner along with other villagers of village Kuansh under Bhadrak District made a representation to the Chief Secretary, Government of Odisha dated 26.12.2017 at Annexure-1, seeking recording of Jalasaya Plot No.1765 in Government records and consequential direction to evict the alleged illegal encroachers and to restore the status of such land.
4. On perusal of the same, it can be seen that to fortify their stand the Petitioner along with others relied on several documents including orders passed by the Apex Court as well as the decisions of this Court and details of the land has also been mentioned in the said representation and a copy thereof was endorsed to the Revenue Secretary, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, Revenue Divisional Commissioner (Central), Odisha, Cuttack, Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack and Collector, Bhadrak.
The Deputy Secretary to the Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack vide letter dated 11.01.2018 referring to the grievance petition at Annexure-1 adverted to hereinabove directed the Collector, Bhadrak to conduct an inquiry and submit a comprehensive report for appraisal of the Member, Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack.
Similar communication dated 12.01.2018 was addressed to the Collector, Bhadrak by the Office of the Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Odisha, Cuttack.
The Government in the Revenue and Disaster Management Department referring to the representation at Annexure-1 has directed the Collector, Bhadrak, Sub-Collector, Bhadrak and Tahasildar, Bhadrak to inquire into the matter and take action in accordance with law.
The said communication of the Board of Revenue, Odisha, Cuttack, Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Central Division, Odisha, Cuttack and the Revenue and Disaster Management Department are on record at Annexures-2 to 4 of the Writ Petition. Copy of the instructions as imparted by the Government vide Annexure-4 was also endorsed to the Petitioner specifically referring to the petition dated 26.12.2017 at Annexure-1.
5. While the matter stood thus, vide letter dated 31.01.2018 the Deputy Collector (Revenue), Collectorate, Bhdrak vide Annexure-5 sought information regarding steps taken for eviction of unauthorized encroachment and redressal of the grievance in public interest.
The Government in the Revenue and Disaster Management Department reiterated its direction to the Collector, Bhadrak by letter dated 13.03.2018, vide Annexure-6 to look into the grievance petition dated 26.12.2017 relating to unauthorized occupation of Jalasaya Land.
6. When the Petitioner could not get any information relating to any follow up action, he made an application for information under Section 16 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act, 2005)[ . Term of office and conditions of service.-(1) The State Chief Information Commissioner shall hold office 1[for such term as may be prescribed by the Central Government] and shall not be eligible for reappointment:
Provided that no State Chief Information Commissioner shall hold office as such after he has attained the age of sixty-five years.] to the Public Information Officer, Office of the Tahasildar, Bhadrak.
Particulars of the information was sought in terms of Rule 4(1) thereof in Form-A. The specific details of information sought for in Paragraph-5(c) of the said Form, which is germane for just adjudication is extracted hereunder:











“xxx xxx xxx
5. Particulars of information soli





























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top