Jump to content
News Ticker
  • NPAs under PM Modi's Mudra scheme jumped 126% in FY19
  • shows RTI
  • RTI query reveals banking frauds of ₹ 2.05 Trillion reported in the last 11 years
  • 509 per cent rise in cases under child labour law: Study
  • The Central Information Commission has allowed disclosure of file notings on the mercy petition of a rape and murder convict, rejecting the government's contention that the records cannot be disclosed as these are privileged documents under Article 74(2) of the Constitution.
  • Electoral bonds worth over ₹5,800 crore were bought by donors to fund political parties between March 1, 2018 and May 10, 2019, a Right to Information reply has said.
  • Don't pay 500/- for answer sheet now- Supreme Court says if Answer sheet is asked under RTI, RTI Fees will be governed

Arbitrary disposal of large volume of cases sans hearing by the Odisha Information Commission

Recommended Posts


Copied the following from a post in another RTI related group:


Dear friends,

Under Sections 18, 19 and 20 of RTI Act, the Information Commission has been empowered to receive, hear, enquire and dispose the Complaints and Second Appeals and also to impose penalty on defaulting PIOs as and where required. Needless to say, the hearing of the cases is crucial in the entire process of disposal of a case, simply for the reason that it gives an opportunity of hearing to the concerned PIO, on whom lies the burden of proof as to whether he acted diligently to provide the requested information to the applicant. It is also important because the complainant/petitioner might raise a slew of critical issues on account of which the RTI users like him were deprived of access to information sought for, and which the Commission as per Section 19(8) should address to for a better administration of RTI regime in the concerned public authority in future.


But unfortunately, Odisha Information Commission has been found unilaterally disposing a large bulk of the cases without holding any hearing on them. It neither makes an enquiry nor gives anopportunity of hearing to any party to the case. It has been further noticed that while disposing the cases in the above manner, the Commission generally directs the concerned 1st Appellate Authority to dispose the case at their level and ask the concerned complainant, if necessary to approach the Commission again in the form of a complaint or second appeal, in case he or she is dissatisfied with the decision of 1st Appellate Authority.


To ascertain the number of cases disposed by the Commission in the arbitrary manner as mentioned above, an RTI Application was submitted to the office of Odisha Information Commission and the information received in response thereto is as follows-


Cases disposed by the Commission without hearing in 4 month period.

Month of 2011

State Chief Information Commissioner

Mr. Jagadanand, SIC

Mr. Pramod Mohanty, SIC


No. of Complaint cases disposed

No. of second appeal cases disposed

No. of Complaint cases disposed

No. of second appeal cases disposed

No. of Complaint cases disposed

No. of second appeal cases disposed




































( Information obtained through RTI on dt. 28.12.2011)


a. From the above table it is learnt that within period of four months (August – November 2011), the Commission has unilaterally and arbitrarily disposed a total of 1338 cases. If extrapolated, the figures for the year would amount to approximately. 5352.


b. When inquired about “ why the Commission adopts such arbitrary method of disposing the cases, the clarification cited by the Commission is that as a large bulk of the cases is pending in the Commission, there is no option except this procedure for disposing the cases with a view to reduce the volume of pendency.


c. When enquired about the rate of compliance (providing information to the complainant), the response of the Commission was “ no such record is maintained by the Commission”. It means that the Commission is concerned about the rate of disposal of cases in its own arbitrary, but not so about the actual rate of compliance of its orders for providing the information to the deprived applicants. Therefore, the claim of the Commission in public forums that that there was compliance to the Commission’s orders to the extent of 90 % is false and deserves to be discarded.


D. Let us go to other side of the story. In large number of cases ( such as for instance CC No- 4165/2011 and CC No.- 2/2011) the 1st Appellate Authorities are neither hearing nor disposing the cases. In fact, the cases unilaterally disposed by the Commission are old ones which require immediate hearing and immediate delivery of information to the complainants and penalty against the defaulter PIOs. As the Commission doesn’t enforce actual compliance in terms of delivery of information to the complainants and no penalty is imposed on erring PIOs for their failure to provide the information, the net result is widespread discontentment and anger created among the deprived citizens. In a situation where the Complainant has at long last been ditched by the Commission, he simply feels hopeless about approaching the Commission again in the manner of filing a complaint or second appeal. There is only a burning anger and frustration left in them. It has been gathered from the sources close to the complainants that huge numbers of cases disposed unilaterally by the Commission has not resulted in any delivery of information the complainants had asked for but were unduly refused. Though some complainants have filed again theprevious cases to the Commission, the latter s yet to begin deciding them.


e. The above procedure adopted by the Commission has encouraged the PIOs to disregard the RTI Act altogether . They are showing a careless attitude to the RTI applications, being overconfident that there is no fear of penalty from the Commission.


The Commission may feel a self-congratulatory satisfaction by dishing out the figures of reduced pendency, but in the process they have made RTI Act a casualty of their arbitrary rule. It would result in growing frustration and hopelessness among the RTI users and further boost to corruption and misfeasance across the state.


Pradip Pradhan


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Illegal .

this is the only word that describes procedure adopted by Odisha SIC . Matter needs to be raised before High Court for fresh take up of all such cases by SIC .

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Similar Content

    • garg0505
      By garg0505
      On 14.03.2018 a complaint was filed under RTI Act,2005 with CIC under section 20(1), on the grounds that the CPIO did not provide the information despite the orders of FAA.
      During the hearing the respondent CPIO of PMO office submitted that information had been provided to complainant vide letter dated 01.03.2018 through speed post.
      Whereas, the information wasn't received by me and after having hearing submission of both the parties and persuing the records the commission directs the respondent to resend the letter dated 01.03.2018 alongwith the proof of its dispatch including tracking number to the complainant within two weeks. Furthermore my complaint have been disposed of.
      The CPIO of PMO has coplience the orders of CIC and now I received the information alongwith proof of dispatch on 05.07.2019.
      Since the copy of reply furnished by CPIO of PMO is unprincipled and immature, & very much fishy. Therefore, expert advice is needed on the following issues
      1. Can I still file my appeal against the reply of CPIO of PMO in the event of disposed of my complaint in CIC orders.
      For your convenience I am enclosing the CIC orders.
      .CIC Order on PMO CPIO
    • Shrawan
      By Shrawan
      Deciding appeal weather the Appellant is required to be compulsorily present during hearing, the following was decided:
      The Central Information Commission Appeal Procedure Rules 2005 are clear that an appellant may be present in person or through his duly authorized representative, or may opt not to be present in appeal before the Commission. Such a principle will apply mutatis mutandis to any appeal before any lower authority under the Right to Information Act.
      See the attached decision.


  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy