Orissa HC Rejects RTI Applicant’s Compensation Plea Over 2020 Representation, Upholds Commission’s Finding That Information Was Supplied

The petitioner sought information concerning action taken on his representation dated 20 February 2020.

In a second appeal, the Odisha Information Commission recorded that the RTI application had been transferred to the Home Department and directed that the petitioner could file a first appeal before that Department; it also noted delays in the appeal process and transfer of the application.

The petitioner’s writ petition sought the information, punishment, penalty and compensation for an allegedly false contempt compliance report, and quashing of that report.

The contempt proceeding had been disposed of.

The petitioner also challenged the Information Commission’s decision and relied on its observations concerning the handling of his first appeal.

Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution govern the High Court’s writ and supervisory jurisdiction; the Court stated that it could not re-examine the factual aspect of information supplied by the respondent PIO in exercising that jurisdiction.

Section 6(3) of the Right to Information Act requires transfer of an RTI application within five days; the Commission noted delay in the transfer and warned the concerned PIO.

Relying on Dollar Company v. Collector, Madras, AIR 1975 SC 1670, the Court applied the principle that an appellate court interferes not merely because a decision may not be right, but when it is shown to be wrong.

The Commission had considered the parties’ submissions and the record, including the PIO’s account of the application’s transfer and the steps taken on the first appeal; it also addressed the delay by permitting the petitioner to appeal to the Home Department and directing that delay to be condoned.

The High Court declined to revisit the underlying factual finding concerning supply of information and found no basis to hold the Commission’s decision incorrect under the principle stated in Dollar Company.

It further held that the requested reliefs concerning the contempt compliance report and punishment or compensation were not maintainable after the contempt proceeding had been disposed of.

The writ petition was disposed of without granting relief.