WA/137/2026 of SRI HRISHAV DHAWAJ PURKAYASTHA Vs THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION ASSAM AND 3 ORS on 12 May 2026

GAHC010057302026

2026:GAU-AS:6629- DB

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/137/2026 SRI HRISHAV DHAWAJ PURKAYASTHA S/O. SRI. BIKASH PURKAYASTHA, R/O. MALUGRAM, NABAPALLY ROAD, P/O. SILCHAR-2, P/S. MALUGRAM OUTPOST, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM, PIN- 788002 VERSUS THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION ASSAM AND 3 ORS STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, JONAKEE COMPLEX, PANJABARI, GUWAHATI-781037, ASSAM. 2:THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019 3:THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER O/O. INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS CDC SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788001 4:THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL (I/C) BANSKANDI NMHS SCHOOL BANSKANDI DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN-78810

For the appellant : Mr. M.P. Choudhury, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. D. Deka, Advocate for Respondent No.1

– B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 13-05-2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.) We have heard Mr. M.P. Choudhury, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. D. Deka, learned Advocate for the respondent No.1. The appellant had filed one RTI application in the month of January, 2025 before the Public Information Officer, namely, the Inspector of Schools, Silchar seeking detailed information about processing of the file of his father and the delay in grant of his retiral benefits. However, no information was received by the appellant except for partial answer to the queries raised by him. The appellant, dissatisfied with the incomplete information, preferred an appeal before the First Appellate authority, where also he was only provided with partial response, namely, answers to only some of the queries and not to all of them, which, according to the appellant, were interconnected. The appellant, thereafter, preferred a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act before the respondent No.1 but till date, the second appeal has not been disposed off.

Under such circumstances, the appellant has preferred the writ petition [WP(C) 710/2026]. It appears that at the motion stage itself, the learned Single Judge sought information from the Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 with respect to query Nos.16 and 17 of the RTI application. Those queries related to the process, namely, whether a retired employee is served with a copy of the approval order for provisional pension and whether such supply of the approval order to the pensioner is mandatory. On the Standing Counsel informing the learned Single Judge that it was mandatory, the learned Single Judge concluded that since the queries of the appellant have been satisfied, no further order is required to be passed. The appellant questions such an order on the ground that there are still some queries left, which were required to be answered. Instead of issuing a direction to the Second Appellate authority, namely, the respondent No.1, for disposing off this second appeal, the writ petition was closed. Mr. D. Deka, learned Advocate, who appears for the respondent No.1, submits that the second appeal preferred by the appellant shall be disposed off within a period of 8 (eight) weeks, to be counted from today. In view of such assertion by the learned Advocate for the respondent No.1, we close this appeal by modifying the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent that the second appeal would be disposed off by the respondent No.1 within the aforesaid period. The writ appeal stands disposed off.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

Comparing Assistant