p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.1409 of 2026 Pravat Kumar Pradhan …. Petitioner Mr. S. K. Baral, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.K. Mohanty, ASC Mr. B. K. Dash, Advocate CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 19.03.2026 04. 1. Recorded the submission of Mr. Baral, learned counsel for the petitioner and State. 2. Instant writ petition is filed by petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 19th August, 2025 as at Annexure-5 of opposite party No.2 on the grounds stated and to issue direction to them to enquire into the complaint filed by him and also to furnish the information/documents as sought for in terms of the RTI application i.e. Annexure-1. 3. Referring to Annexure-5, Mr. Baral, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal has been disposed of on the premise that the information sought for by the petitioner is of the year 2015 and that apart being barred by limitation which is not legally tenable. Further reason is that the petitioner was absent at call and hence, the appeal was disposed in his absence p. 2 vide Annexure-5 without any such direction issued to supply the information as per Annexure-1 and direction to enquire into the complaint. 4. Recorded the submission of learned counsel for the State. 5. In fact, no complaint is filed by the petitioner, rather, it is a grievance since the RTI application under Annexure-1 demanding supply of information was not attended to by opposite party No.4. 6. Though, the information is of the year 2015 and application under the RTI Act is submitted in 2022, this Court is of the view that opposite party No.2 could not have dismissed the appeal on any such ground being barred on account of limitation. The Court is also the view that opposite party No.2 ought to have entertained the appeal and disposed it of on merit even in absence of the petitioner. Since RTI information was not supplied to the petitioner and it was appealed vide Annexure-2 and ultimately, he approached opposite party No.2, this Court is of the view that notwithstanding any such delay with respect to the information of the year 2015, it was not right and justified on its part to dismiss the appeal. In other words, this Court is of the considered view that the appeal filed by the petitioner is to be restored to file for a decision on merit and in order to ensure supply of the information under the RTI application i.e. Annexure-1 by opposite party No.2 notwithstanding any such delay which has taken place at his behest. Page 3 of 3 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. 8. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to opposite party No.2 to deal with the appeal as per Annexure-2 and to dispose it of on merit with an opportunity of hearing to the parties. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order dated 19th August, 2025 at Annexure-5 by opposite party No.2 is hereby set aside thereby restoring the appeal i.e. Annexure-4 for its disposal in accordance with law. 9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge TUDU Designation: Sr. Stenographer