Cuttack, July 30: The high court has granted temporary reprieve to retired IAS officer Bijay Dhal.

The court has imposed a restriction on the Orissa Information Commission’s order imposing a penalty of Rs 25,000 for a delay of 100 days in supplying information when he was vice-chairman of Cuttack Development Authority three years ago.

While imposing the penalty the, state’s chief information commissioner Tarun Kanti Mishra had also directed Dhal to deposit the penalty amount in the government treasury within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

On failing, the penalty amount was to be recovered in equal monthly instalments from his pension, beginning from July, 2011. The commission had issued the order on May 20.

Dhal had sought quashing of this order in the high court saying he was vice-chairman of Cuttack Development Authority (CDA), but he was neither the public information officer, nor the first appellate authority under the Right to Information Act.

Besides, the application for information was disposed of within 30 days of filing.

While seeking an interim order, the petition said: “Unless the recovery is stayed, I shall suffer irreparable loss and hardship even after my retirement.”

“After a preliminary hearing yesterday, the two-judge bench of Chief Justice V. Gopala Gowda and Justice B.N. Mohapatra issued an interim stay order and issued notices seeking clarification on the case,” petitioner counsel Dayananda Mohapatra told The Telegraph today.

The case records say one Balakrushna Parida had, on July 16, 2008, sought information on an inquiry report of the CDA chairman and the written statement submitted by him.

The file, on permissibility of supplying such information, was dealt with by the administration wing and disposed of on August 8, 2008, by Dhal (then vice-chairman) with the opinion that it was not permissible under section 8 (J) of the RTI Act.

“It is obvious that Dhal had passed a wrong order, which is contrary to the advice tendered by the law officer. Dhal should have recorded a speaking order while disagreeing with the law officer. In its absence, it appears that the refusal was wilful,” the chief information officer had observed while imposing the penalty.

The law officer had observed that such information does not come under the scope of section 8 or 9 of the RTI Act, 2005. He had advised that the information may be supplied.

Krutibas Nayak (then secretary), without giving any opinion, submitted the file to the vice-chairman. His decision was implemented and the information was not furnished.