Orissa High Court
WP(C)/22112/2026 of SATRUPA MALLICK Vs ODISHA INFORMATION COMMISSION, BHUBANESWAR on 18 August 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.22112 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010502982026 Satrupa Mallick …. Petitioner Mr. Akhand, Advocate -versus- Odisha Information Commission and others …. Opposite Parties Mr. Smruti Ranjan Dash, Advocate (for O.P.1) Mr. Surya Kanta Parhi,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.22112 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010502982026
Satrupa Mallick
….
Petitioner
Mr. Akhand, Advocate
-versus-
Odisha Information Commission
and others
….
Opposite Parties
Mr. Smruti Ranjan Dash, Advocate
(for O.P.1)
Mr. Surya Kanta Parhi, Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
18.08.2026
02.
1. This writ petition has been filed for a direction to the Odisha Information Commission (Opposite Party No.1) to hear the Second Appeal No.3618 of 2025 filed under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, the Act’) by the petitioner.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner filed a second appeal on 31.10.2025 before the Odisha Information Commission invoking provisions of Section 19(3) of the Act, which was registered as Second Appeal No.3618 of 2025. More than nine months have elapsed since filing, yet the appeal has not been taken up for hearing. Due to pendency of the second appeal without any progress, the petitioner is highly prejudiced. Hence, this writ petition has been filed for the aforesaid relief.
3. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that since the second appeal may not ready for hearing, direction for early disposal of the same would not be proper. However, the petitioner may, if so advised, move the Odisha Information Commissioner (opposite party no.1) for early disposal of the second appeal indicating urgency in the matter.
4. Sri Smruti Ranjan Dash, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 has raised no objection to such observation and liberty granted to the petitioner.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with an observation that in the event the petitioner moves an application to get the second appeal ready and dispose of the same at an early date providing detailed reasons thereof, the learned Odisha Information Commission may do well to consider the same in accordance with law. (M.S. Raman) Judge
Aswini Digitally Signed Signed by: ASWINI KUMAR SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Aug-2026 17:38:39 Signature Not Verified