Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. As prayed, both the writ applications being connected to each other have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

CWJC No. 5500 of 2023

3. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to pay an enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs only).

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had appeared in the intermediate examination of the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) in the year 2017 from Project Girls High School, Simri Bhakhityarpur, Saharsa. She was declared ‘failed’ vide marksheet dated 30.05.2017 as contained in Annexure ‘2’ to the writ application. The case of the petitioner is that her father filed an application before the Nodal Officer of the Board under Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2005’) on 25.09.2017 to provide the copy of answer books of the petitioner, the Public Information Officer (in short ‘P.I.O.’) did not supply the required information and the documents. The petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act of 2005 before the Chairman of the Board to provide the copy of the answer books but even the Appellate Authority failed to provide the information.

5. It is submitted that ultimately the father of the petitioner filed a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act of 2005 before the Chief Information Commissioner, Patna which was registered as Case No. A5718 of 2018. The Board was given an opportunity to file its reply/ show cause and after hearing the parties, the State Information Commissioner vide his order dated 06.12.2019 held that there were latches on the part of the P.I.O. and the then Assistant and the Section Officers in the matter of not providing the answer books to the petitioner.

6. Having arrived on this conclusion, the State Information Commissioner relied upon his earlier order dated 02.09.2019 in Case No. A6799 of 2018 and further relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 420 of 2012 (Suresh and Anr. vs. State of Haryana) to take a view that even though the applicant has not prayed for relief of compensation, he may pass an appropriate order awarding compensation on his own. The State Information Commissioner has awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the petitioner and issued further direction to the Board to initiate appropriate inquiry against the persons who are responsible for not providing the required information and the answer books to the petitioner and this amount be realized from them.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount of compensation has been fixed at a lower side. The State Information Commissioner was required to appreciate the kind of loss not only in terms of her academic career but also on account of mental agony the petitioner had to suffer on having been declared ‘fail’. It is submitted that by not providing the answer books to the petitioner the anxiety of the petitioner was only further enhanced and for all these sufferance the petitioner would have been entitled for a compensation of at least Rs.25,00,000/-.

CWJC No. 1172 of 2021

8. In this application the Board has challenged the order dated 06.12.2019 by which the compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- has been awarded to the applicant-father of the petitioner in CWJC No. 5500 of 2023 who is Respondent No. 5 in the present writ application.

Submissions on behalf of the Board

9. Mr. Satyabir Bharti, learned Advocate representing the Board has, at the outset, submitted that there is no doubt a case of delay and latches on the part of P.I.O. and he would not be defending such delay and latches in not providing the information as required under the Act of 2005 but he is questioning the manner in which the State