Back
2024 Supreme(Chh) 352
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
SANJAY S. AGRAWAL, J.
Public Information Officer, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - Petitioner
Versus
Abdul Kalim Qureshi, S/o. Late Abdul Sattar & Ors. - Respondents
WPC No. 2162 of 2015
Decided On : 12-03-2024
For the Petitioner: Shri Manoj Paranjpe appears along with Shri Arpan Verma, counsel.
For the Respondents: Shri S.S. Tekchandani, counsel.
IMPORTANT POINT
The compensation payable under Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act must be for any loss or other detriment suffered on account of denial of information, and a specific finding to this effect is required before imposing compensation.
Headnote:
Right to Information Act - Legality and Propriety of Order - Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 - 19(8)(b) of the Act of 2005
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, which dismissed the second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and awarded compensation to the respondent. The petitioner argued that the compensation was imposed without a specific finding of loss or detriment suffered by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the compensation imposed without a specific finding of loss or detriment suffered by the respondent was unsustainable and set aside the order of the Appellate Authority-Chhattisgarh State Information Commission.
Issues: The legality and propriety of the order dated 18.08.2015 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, the imposition of compensation without a specific finding of loss or detriment suffered by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, the compensation payable must be for any loss or other detriment suffered on account of denial of information, and a specific finding to this effect is required before imposing compensation.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the order of the Appellate Authority-Chhattisgarh State Information Commission was set aside.
ORDER :
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 18.08.2015 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur in Appeal No.94/2011, whereby the second appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (In short “the Act of 2005”) has been dismissed, but has awarded compensation to him to the tune of Rs.500/- payable by the petitioner-the Public Information Officer, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur within a period of 30 days.
2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent No.1-Abdul Kalim Qureshi has moved an application on 21.08.2008 (Annexure P/2) while addressing to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Chhattisgarh by submitting inter alia, while referring to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Om Prakash Jaiswal vs. D.K. Mittal & Another, reported in AIR 2000 S.C. 1136, that since the stay order passed on 25.08.2001 in W.P.No.5814 of 2000 has not been complied with by the petitioner of the said writ petition, namely, Ranveer Singh Chane nor by his legal representatives and that by bringing the said fact, has prayed for a suitable advice as under:-
“Your honour is therefore prayed to order enquiry into this episode in light of contents recorded at para 17 of Judgment reported at AIR 2000 SC 1136, and to convey a suitable advise whether the undersigned is required to lodge a separate complaint u/s 346(1) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2007 & obliged.”
3. After filing of the aforesaid application, he moved another application on 17.11.2008 (Annexure P/3) while invoking the provision prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act of 2005, before the Public Information Officer of the High Court of Chhattisgarh for taking an action on his abovementioned application dated 21.08.2008, as under:-
“Action taken on application dt. 21/08/08 and advise sought at last para of the said application is prayed to be conveyed.”
4. In response to the aforesaid application, it was informed by the Assistant Public Information Officer-cum-Deputy Registrar, High Court of Chhattisgarh, as under:-
“As the writ petition is already pending, therefore, any application for redressal of your grievance can be filed in the said writ petition.”
5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid reply, an appeal was preferred by the said respondent under Section 19 of the Act of 2005 before the Registrar General-Cum-First Appellate Authority, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, who in turn, has allowed the same in part vide its order dated 07.04.2010 (Annexure P/6) and the Assistant Public Information Officer was directed to provide the details available on record with regard to status of the said application as moved by him on 21.08.2008.
6. It appears that in pursuance to the said direction, the information was provided by the petitioner on 26.07.2010, though there was some delay in furnishing the same. It appears further that despite the furnishing of the said information, yet a second appeal was preferred by respondent No.1 on 30.08.2010 under Section 19(3) of the Act of 2005 before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, who in turn, after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner for providing the delayed information, has accepted the same vide its order impugned dated 18.08.2015 and accordingly, the appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 has been closed/filed. It is, however, to be seen at this juncture that despite accepting the explanation offered by the petitioner in supplying the delayed information and that by closing the said second appeal as such, it was observed by the Appellate Authority that since there was delay in furnishing the information, therefore, in exercise of the powers provided under Section 19(8) (b) of the Act of 2005, the alleged amount of compensation has been imposed upon the petitioner t
