AJAYA KUMAR SETHY vs STATE OF ODISHA

Court
Odisha High Court


IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.29983 of 2026
[CNR No. ODHC010685292026]
Ajaya Kumar Sethy … ... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others ... … Opp. Parties

Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. Lalatendu Samantaray, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Asutosh Sahoo, Advocate

For Opp. Parties : Mrs. Suman Pattanayak, Addl. Govt.
Advocate (for O.P. Nos.1, 2 & 3)
Mr. Smruti Ranjan Dash, Advocate
(for O.P. No.4)


CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO

J U D G M E N T

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment:27.10.2026
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.

1 . Appearance memo of learned Sr. Counsel Mr.
Samantaray shall be taken on record. Scanned copy be
updated.

WP(C) No.29983 of 2026 Page 1 of 6

2 . The petitioner has filed the writ application with the
following prayers:
“…(i) To furnish complete information as per the
representation dated 20.02.2020;
(ii) To pass an appropriate order of punishment,
penalty and compensation to the opp. Party for filing of
false compliance report in CONTC No.1838 of 2026
(Arising out of W.P.(C) No.37667 of 2025);
(iii) To quash the compliance report filed by the Opp.
Party No.2 dated 14.05.2026 vide Annexure-1 Series;
…”
3. Essentially, the challenge in the writ petition is to the
final order dated 21.06.2023 passed in First Appeal by the
learned Odisha Information Commission. Though the
contempt application CONTC No.1838 of 2026 [arising out
of W.P.(C) No.37667 of 2025] has been disposed of and the
proceeding has been dropped, a further prayer has been
made in the writ application challenging the said
order/seeking modification of the order dated 21.08.2026
passed in CONTC No.1838 of 2026. The third prayer made
in the writ application is to quash the compliance affidavit
filed by the opposite party in the contempt application
CONTC No.1838 of 2026 after disposal of the said contempt
application.
4. The petitioner was earlier also before this Court by
filing writ application W.P.(C) No.20124 of 2016, which was
disposed of by division bench by order dated 21.11.2019,
wherein the following has been observed:
“By way of this writ petition, the petitioners
challenged the action of the State Government in
Department of Home in not mentioning about
reservation and age relaxation in the OPSC
WP(C) No.29983 of 2026 Page 2 of 6

Advertisement No.05/2016-17 dated 04.10.2016
meant for recruitment in respect of Public Prosecutors.
Since the relief sought for is against an
advertisement of the year 2016 and there is no stay
order and the recruitment has already been done,
this writ petition has become academic.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as
infructuous. However, it would be open for the
petitioners to file fresh petition, if at all there is
violation of Rules relating to recruitment of Public
Prosecutor.”

5. In considered opinion of this Court the prayers made
at para-(ii) and (iii) of ‘prayer’ as quoted above are not
maintainable after disposal of the contempt application by
the coordinate Bench dropping/disposing the contempt
petition.
Regarding the prayer made at para-(i) seeking a
direction to furnish complete information as per the
representation dated 20.02.2020, the order passed by the
Odisha Information Commission, Bhubaneswar by decision
of the learned State Chief Information Commissioner dated
04.05.2023 in Second Appeal No. 1238 of 2020 has to be
taken note of. The operative portion of the said order
extracted from the copy annexed to the writ application
marked as Annexure-3 series is reproduced herein:
“4. Pursuant to the direction of the Commission dated
16.03.2023, the PIO has filed a detailed submission,
in response to the points raised by the appellant in his
counter submission dated 18.04.2023. He has
submitted that since Home Department is the
appropriate Administrative Department, with regard to
the subject matter of the grievance petition dated
20.02.2020; hence it was forwarded to the Home
WP(C) No.29983 of 2026 Page 3 of 6

Department and OPSC, vide their letter dated
12.03.2020 and subsequently the RTI application was
transferred to the PIOs, Home Department and OPSC,
vide their letter dated 10.06.2020. As regards
allegations relating to non-disposal of the first appeal
petition, the PIO has clarified that the first appeal
hearing was fixed on 15.01.2021 and accordingly,
first appeal intimation dated 08.01.2021 was sent
through speed post on 11.01.2021, to the appellant. In
the said intimation dated 08.01.2021, the PIO(N)
GA&PG Department stated the following:

"I am directed to invite reference to the
subject cited above and to say that your
appeal could not be heard in time due to
restriction on entry of outside person to the
Lokaseva Bhawan on account of COVID-19
which is still in force. The case has been
fixed for hearing on 15.01.2021 at 12:30
P.M. You are requested to submit your
presentation or documents to the e-mail ID
[email protected] or by post on or before
14.01.2021 to the under signed."

Thereafter, the order of the First Appellate Authority
dated 15.01.2021 was communicated to the appellant,
vide their letter dated 25.01.2021 through speed post
on 28.01.2021. However, the Commission takes a
serious view of the fact that the first appeal intimation
was sent only on 11:01.2021, when the first appeal
hearing was posted to 15.01.2021, without giving
adequate time to the appellant, for which the
concerned First Appellate Authority is directed to
exercise due diligence in handling RTI matters.
5. The Commission, after taking into account the
submissions of both the parties and after perusal of
records observes that the appellant in this case had
sought action taken report of the
government/pertaining to his representation dated
20.02.2020. Since the respondent PIO has submitted
that the subject matter of the grievance petition relates
WP(C) No.29983 of 2026 Page 4 of 6

to the Home Department, which is the appropriate
administrative Department and the matter was
forwarded/transferred to the Home Department;
hence the appellant shall be at liberty to file his first
appeal before the concerned First Appellate Authority,
Home Department, within one month of receipt of this
order, enclosing a copy of this order. On receipt of the
such first appeal from the appellant, the First
Appellate Authority, Home Department shall condone
the delay in filing such appeal and shall dispose of the
first appeal, as per the provisions under the Act.
6. However, the Commission takes note of the delay
caused in transfer of the appellant's Form-A
application, which should have been done within 5
days of receipt of the Form-A application, under
Section 6(3) of the Act for which the concerned PIO is
severely warmed for such delay, to be prompt in
handling RTI matters. The Present PIO, GA&PG
Department shall communicate a copy of this order to
the concerned PIO within one week of receipt of this
order.
7. With the above observations and directions, the
case is hereby closed and the subject second appeal
case stands disposed of.”

6. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner relies on
paragraph-4 of the order to submit that the petitioner
herein should have been awarded compensation/cost as
contemplated in the statute.
7. In the context of the said submission, it has to be
observed that the learned Information Commission in the
Second Appeal has given a finding of fact regarding supply
of information to the petitioner.
This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot go into
the said aspect.
WP(C) No.29983 of 2026 Page 5 of 6

8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dollar Company v.
Collector, Madras:AIR 1975 SC 1670 have held at
paragraph-4, which is reproduced below:
“… Moreover, there is a prudent condition to which
the appellate power, generally speaking, is subject.
A court of appeal interferes not when the judgment
under attack is not right but only when it is shown
to be wrong. ...”
This Court does not find that the decision of the State
Information Commission is incorrect in any manner,
therefore applying the principles as laid down in Dollar
Company (supra) , it has to be and it is held that the order
passed by the learned Information Commission needs no
interference.
9. In view of the above, the writ application is disposed of,
the petitioner not being entitled to any relief sought for.


(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge













Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
The 27 October, 2026/Radha

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: RADHARANI JENA
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 02-Nov-2026 17:54:49
WP(C) No.29983 of 2026 Page 6 of 6