The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 30-Oct-2024 18:11:18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 25469 OF 2022 M/s. Sambalpuri Bastrayalaya Handloom Cooperative Society Ltd., Bargarh …. Petitioner Mr. Somanath Mishra, Advocate -versus- Odisha Information Commissioner, Bhubaneswar and another …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Smruti Ranjan Dash, Advocate (For Opp. Party No.1) Ms. Debadeepta Sahoo, Advocate (For Opp. Party No.2) CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 30.10.2024 7. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks to assail the order dated 26th July, 2022 (Annexure-5) passed in Second Appeal No.1261 of 2018, whereby the State Information Commission, Bhubaneswar (for brevity ‘the Commission’) directed the Petitioner-Management to provide the Audit Report for the year, 1980-81 to the Opposite Party No.2, namely, Lalbihari Rath within two months from the date of receipt of the said order failing which the Petitioner-Management was directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation to the Opposite Party No.2 under Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity ‘the Act’). Page 1 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 30-Oct-2024 18:11:18 3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner- Management submits that the application in Form-A was filed by Opposite Party No.2 requiring certain information. The dispute is with regard to supply of the Audit Report for the year 1980-81 of the Management. Since the said document was not available with the Petitioner-Management, it could not be supplied. The 1st Appellate Authority-cum-Managing Director in its order under Annexue-2 has categorically observed that the Audit Report has been filed in I.D. Case No.6 of 1995 pending before the Labour Court, Sambalpur. In the objection to the appeal filed under Section 19(3) of the Act, the Petitioner- Management has categorically stated in column No.7 of the table that:- “As regards Audit Report of 80-81, the applicant was provided a copy of Special Audit Report conducted by a CA, the applicant asked for Govt. Audit Report but since it is not available in the office it was not possible to supply. However, as per direction of the Hon’ble Commission on dt.2.05.22, the PIO requested 13 nos. of institutions to provide a copy of Govt. Audit Report of Sambalpuri Bastralaya for the year 1980-81, out of that only 7 nos. of institutions like, AAGCS, Bargarh, ARCS, Bargarh, Dy. DT, Bargarh, OSCB, BBST Khadi Board, BBSR, Directorate of Textiles, Odisha had responded that the said information is not available at their end and SDCC Bank, Bargarh has also denied to supply on the ground that it is not coming under the scope of RTI Act, 2005.” The Commission although took note of the same, but expressed its dismay as to how an important document like Audit Report of 1980-81, which needs preservation for the purpose of necessary compliance and further reference and for Page 2 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 30-Oct-2024 18:11:18 guidance, could not be traced out in the office of the Management and passed the impugned order under Annexure-5. 4. It is his submission that there is no material on record to show that the Audit Report, as aforesaid, being available with the Petitioner-Management was not supplied to the Opposite Party No.2. Thus, the impugned order under Annexure-5 is an outcome of surmises and conjectures. The document, which is not available with the Petitioner, has been directed to be supplied to the Opposite Party No.2 failing which a compensation of Rs.20,000/- was directed to be paid, which is also illegal. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-5. 5. Ms. Sahoo, learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2, on the other hand, submits that the document was very much available with the Petitioner. But, it has not exercised due diligence in tracing out the same and supplied to the Opposite Party No.2, as rightly observed by the Commission. If it is believed that the document was filed before the Labour Court, Sambalpur, the same could have been obtained and supplied to the Opposite Party No.2 for which the Commission had granted two months time. As such, there is no illegality in the impugned order under Annexure-5. She, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the Commission vehemently objects to the submission made by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and submits that if it is assumed that the observation of the 1st Appellate Authority of Page 3 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 30-Oct-2024 18:11:18 the Petitioner under the Act is correct, then the copy of the Audit Report of 1980-81 could have been obtained from the Labour Court, Sambalpur and supplied to the Opposite Party No.2. Thus, it appears that neither the PIO nor the 1st Appellate Authority had acted bona fide and exercised due diligence in supplying the document to the Opposite Party No.2. He further submits that the Commission considered each aspect of the matter and reasonably believed that the document is available with the Petitioner, which could be supplied to the Opposite Party No.2. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned order under Anexure-5. 7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the 1st Appellate Authority in its order under Annexure-2 has categorically observed at Paragraph-7 as under: “As regards Audit Report of 80-81, the same has been filed in the ID Case No.6/95 in the Labour Court, Sambalpur against you, for which it can’t be possible to supply.” From the aforesaid observation of the 1st Appellate Authority, it is clear that the document was not available with the Petitioner- Management. True it is that a certified copy of the Audit Report for the year, 1980-81 could have been obtained by the Petitioner from the Labour Court, Sambalpur and supplied to the Opposite Party No.2. But while considering the application filed by the Opposite Party No.2 in Form-A, the PIO intimated that the said document is not available in the office of the Petitioner- Management at the relevant time, which appears to be correct in view of the fact stated above. Thus, this Court does not find any Page 4 of 5 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA SAHOO Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 30-Oct-2024 18:11:18 illegality in such communication. Further, supply of information being time bound, the PIO cannot be faulted with in making such communication. 8. In view of the observation of the 1st Appellate Authority, the document could not have been supplied to the Opposite Party No.2 within the stipulated time, as it was filed in ID Case No.6 of 1995 pending before the Labour Court, Sambalpur. Thus, observation of the Commission that the Petitioner has not acted with due diligence to meet the requirement of Opposite Party No.2, is not correct. Be that as it may a speculative order for compensation could not have been passed. An order under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act may be passed by following due procedure of law. A conditional order could not have been passed. As such, this Court finds that the impugned order under Annexure-5 is not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. 9. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. ms (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Page 5 of 5