p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.7524 of 2025 Manoranjan Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. A.K. Panda. Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & another …. Opposite Parties Mrs. S. Mohanty, ASC Mr. B.K. Dash, Sr. Advocate for State Information Commission CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 23.04.2026 06. 1. Heard Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the State Information Commission and also Mrs. Mohanty, learned ASC for the State. 2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 12th December, 2024 by opposite party No.2 in Second Appeal No.2648 of 2023 at Annexure-7 on the grounds stated. 3. Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no information was supplied or directed to be furnished to the petitioner by opposite party No.2 nor any such enquiry was conducted for such non-supply by the PIO, hence, the impugned order vide Annexure-7 cannot be sustained in law. 4. Recorded the submission of Mr. Dash, learned counsel for opposite party No.2. Page 2 of 3 5. The petitioner moved an application as per Annexure-1 seeking supply of information by the PIO concerned but it was not provided to him, hence, First Appeal No.10 of 2023 was filed and disposed of on 9th May, 2023 and it was followed by the impugned order dated 12th December, 2024 i.e. Annexure-7. From the impugned order at Annexure-7, the Court finds that disciplinary action was directed to be initiated against the PIO and to submit a report in that regard. At the same time, the appeal was disposed of by opposite party No.2. The Court finds that neither the information was supplied to the petitioner in response to the RTI application dated 18th January, 2023 at Annexure-1 nor any such direction was followed subsequent to the recommendation for disciplinary enquiry against the PIO. In fact, opposite party No.2 was required to await the report of such enquiry before disposing of the appeal. The Court is of the view that the appeal before the opposite party No.2 could not have been disposed of at that stage pending receipt of the enquiry report. Having said that, the Court is also view that the appeal is required to be restored to the file of opposite party No.2 for its disposal according to law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also upon receiving the enquiry report for the recommendation made. 6. Accordingly, it is ordered. 7. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.2 to proceed with Second Appeal No.2648 of 2023 restored to file and to ensure its disposal in the light of the directions hereinabove at the earliest preferably p. 3 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further directed that the plea of imposition of penalty on the PIO concerned shall also be dealt with by opposite party No.2. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 12th December, 2024 in Second Appeal No.2648 of 203 is hereby set aside with the restoration of the proceeding before opposite party No.2 for disposal of the same in accordance with law. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU Designation: Sr. Stenographer