Back
2025 Supreme(Jhk) 1294
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Anjana Das, W/o Jagdish Lohra - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
W.P. (C) No.455 of 2015
Decided on : 08-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent:Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, Advocate, Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
Compensation for non-compliance with the Right to Information Act can only be imposed on a public authority, not on a Public Information Officer.
Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 19(8) - Compensation imposed on Public Information Officer - Imposition of Rs.5,000/- compensation against Circle Officer found unsustainable as they are not a public authority - Public authority defined under Section 2(h) and Public Information Officer under Section 2(m) - Compensation can only be imposed on public authority. (Paras 1, 3, 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
Writ petition filed by an individual for quashing the order of the Chief Information Commissioner directing the Circle Officer to pay compensation for not providing information as required under the RTI Act. The Circle Officer was penalized for false and misleading statements before the Commission.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner, being a Public Information Officer, cannot be required to pay compensation as imposed by the Commission since they are not classified as a public authority under the Act.
Issues: Whether a Public Information Officer can be imposed a penalty for non-compliance with the Right to Information Act?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the compensation can only be imposed on the public authority as defined in the Act, thereby ruling that the order against the petitioner is not legally sustainable.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of the compensation order and its implications. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. clarification of roles under the right to information act. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. determination of liability under the act. (Para 5) |
| 4. court's final decision on the writ petition. (Para 6) |
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 3rd December, 2014 passed by the respondent no.3-The Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi (in short “the Commission”), the copy of which was communicated to the petitioner vide memo no.9852, dated 8th December, 2014, whereby the petitioner being Circle Officer, Garhwa was directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- by way of demand draft to the respondent no.4 for not providing required information on the issue nos.2, 4, 10 & 12 sought by him and for the reason that the concerned officials of Garhwa district made false and misleading statement before the Commission.
2. On perusal of the impugned order dated 3rd December, 2014 passed by the Commission, it appears that a compensation of Rs.5,000/- was imposed against the office of the Circle Officer, Garhwa under Section 19 (8) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to be paid to the respondent no.4 on the ground of unnecessarily harassing the said respondent. Accordingly, the Circle Officer, Garhwa was directed to pay the said amount of compensation by way of demand draft to the respondent no.4 within 60 days from the date of the receipt of the said order.
3. Admittedly, the petitioner was not the public authority, rather she was Public Information Officer. As per the provisions of Section 19 (8)(b) of the Act, 2005, the compensation can be imposed upon the public authority by the State Information Commission for any loss or other detriment suffered by the information seeker/complainant due to non/delayed supply of information sought by him/her.
4. The State Information Commission or the Central Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require “public authority” to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered in the process of seeking information under the said Act. Admittedly, the petitioner was the “Public Information Officer” and not the “Public Authority”. Public authority has been defined in section 2(h) of the Act, 2005, which means any authority or body or institution of self- government established or constituted by or under the Constitution or by any other law made by Parliament as well as State Legislature, whereas the State Public Information Officer has been defined in Section 2 (m) of the said Act and includes State Assistant Public Information Officer.
5. The petitioner not being the public authority could not have been saddled with the compensation as imposed by the Commission vide impugned order dated 3rd December, 2014. Under the said circumstance, the impugned order dated 3rd December, 2014 cannot be sustained in law and the same is set-aside.
6. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
