The Orissa High Court has held that the restriction imposed by the Odisha Information Commission upon a litigant by allowing him to file only 12 applications in a year before various public authorities is not justified.

The High Court was considering a petition filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the State Information Commission to dispose of the appeals within a stipulated period.

The Single Bench of Justice R.K. Pattanaik held, “The Court is also of the view that the restriction imposed on the petitioner not to make any further applications under the RTI Act in a calendar year but allowing 12 applications only in a year before various public authorities is not justified. In other words, the Court is of the conclusion that opposite party No.1 could not have imposed such a restriction on the petitioner even though he is in the habit of filing number of applications seeking information under the RTI Act and therefore, to that extent, the impugned order at Annexure-6 is liable to be set aside with the direction to opposite party No.2 to supply the balance of the information considering Annexure-1 series.”

Advocate K.K. Rout represented the Petitioner, while Additional Standing Counsel M.K. Mohanty represented the Opposite Parties.

Factual Background

The petitioner moved the authority concerned seeking supply of information under the RTI Act, and it was disposed of vide an order which was under challenge on the ground that the order was cryptic and repetitive. The applications were received by the Public Information Officer, and against the same, the appeals were carried. Considering the petitioner’s conduct, the Odisha Information Commission debarred him from filing any further applications for a period of one year with immediate effect, however, allowing 12 applications under the RTI Act in a calendar year. The petitioner claimed that such a restriction was not legally tenable.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the details of the information sought for and the facts of the case, the Bench held that the entire information had not been provided to the petitioner. “... therefore, this Court is of the humble view that excepting the ones already supplied, the rest should be shared with the petitioner considering the applications as per Annexure-1 series”, it ordered.

The Bench was also of the view that the restriction imposed on the petitioner not to make any further applications under the RTI Act in a calendar year, but allowing 12 applications only in a year before various public authorities, was not justified.

Thus, the Bench disposed of the Petition by setting aside the direction imposing the restriction and asking the Public Information Officer to provide the requisite information.

Cause Title: Chittaranjan Sethy v. Information Commission (Case No.: W.P.(C) No.29216 of 2025)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate K.K. Rout

Opposite Parties: Additional Standing Counsel M.K. Mohanty, Advocate B.K. Dash

Click here to read/download Order


Orissa High CourtJustice RK Pattanaik

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.