The main legal point established is that compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 can only be imposed if the complainant proves sustaining any loss or other detriment, and the distinction between the Public Authority and the Public Information Officer is crucial in providing information.

JUDGMENT :

W.P.(C) No. 4068 of 2012 has been filed for quashing/setting aside the order dated 26.11.2010 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Dhurwa, Ranchi in Appeal No. 488/2009, whereby compensation of Rs.70,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner under Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2005”) without taking into consideration the information furnished by the respondent no. 2 to the State Information Commission vide letter dated 31.10.2009 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and without there being any finding to the effect that the petitioner – University had acted in such manner causing loss or detriment to the respondent no. 3.

2. W.P.(C) No. 4078 of 2012 has been filed for quashing/setting aside the order dated 21.01.2011 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by the Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Dhurwa, Ranchi in Appeal No. 168/2009, whereby compensation of Rs.40,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 without taking into consideration the information furnished by the petitioner to the respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 22.06.2009 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), reply of the respondent no. 2 dated 23.09.2009 submitted before the respondent no. 1 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and the information furnished by the respondent no. 2 to the respondent no. 1 vide letter dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition).

3. In both the writ petitions, the petitioner has wrongly used the word „fine? instead of word „compensation? in paragraph-1 as well as in the prayer portion of the same, as the impugned orders dated 26.11.2010 and 21.01.2011 passed in respective writ petitions suggest that the petitioner has been imposed compensation of Rs.70,000/- and Rs.40,000/- exercising power under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Samshul Haque [the respondent no. 3 of W.P.(C) No. 4068 of 2012] and Shailesh [the respondent no. 3 of W.P.(C) No. 4078 of 2012] had preferred their respective applications seeking information under the Act, 2005. They filed First Appeal before the Competent Authority and Second Appeal before the Jharkhand State Information Commission. During pendency of the appeal before the Commission, the Public Information Officer provided the required information to the complainants, however, the Information Commissioner directed the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.70,000/- [in W.P.(C) No. 4068 of 2012] and Rs.40,000/- [in W.P.(C) No. 4078 of 2012] without recording any finding to the effect that the petitioner had acted in such a manner causing loss or detriment to the complainants. It is further submitted that the petitioner could not have been held liable to pay compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 in absence of any finding that the complainants had suffered any loss or other detriment due to any action/inaction on the part of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 of W.P.(C) No. 4068 of 2012 refers to the copy of memo of appeal dated 05.10.2009 preferred before the Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and submits that in the memo of appeal itself, it was mentioned that valuable time of the respondent no. 3 as well as the Commission was wasted causing financial loss to them which was not in accordance with law.

6. So far as the respondent no. 3 of W.P.(C) No. 4078 of 2012 is concerned, it has been recorded in the order dated 05.01.2023 that the notice was duly served to him.

7. However, no one appears on behalf of the said respondent.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

9. The petitioner–University is admittedly a public authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act, 2005. Hence, both the writ petitions are maintainable.