Omprakash Sawle vs. Second Appellate Authority M.P. State Information Commission

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition with directions to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to approach the respondent authorities within 10 days from the date of the order, filing the remaining necessary documents and an application for early hearing, along with a certified copy of the Court's order. Upon receiving the application within the stipulated time, the respondent authority was directed to immediately register the second appeal. Furthermore, the respondent authority was instructed to proceed with the hearing of the second appeal and decide it as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 30 days after its registration, in accordance with the law. The Court explicitly stated that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

Facts

The petitioner, Omprakash Sawle, filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, seeking a mandamus or other appropriate direction against the Madhya Pradesh State Information Commission (Respondent No. 1) and others. The petitioner was aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in registering his second appeal, filed on March 16, 2026, under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The counsel for the Commission indicated that the appeal could not be registered due to missing necessary documents. The petitioner had sought information through five RTI applications dated December 4, 2024, including details related to GST bills/invoices and other official records.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Madhya Pradesh State Information Commission (Respondent No. 1) has failed to perform its statutory duty by not registering the second appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and consequently denied the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing? The petitioner argued that the respondents' inaction in registering his second appeal, despite being filed under the relevant provision of the RTI Act, amounts to a failure to discharge their statutory obligations. He sought directions for the registration of the appeal, communication of case details, and an effective hearing. The petitioner also sought directions for the furnishing of complete information and certified copies of documents sought through his RTI applications, including those related to GST bills/invoices and scheme-related records. The respondent, represented by the counsel for the Commission, stated that the appeal could not be registered because necessary documents were not annexed. However, they submitted that if the petitioner approached the authority with the necessary documents and an application for early hearing, the same would be considered, and the appeal would be registered and decided.