JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Dr. Ravi Ranjan, C.J. and Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
Harishankar Barik – Appellant
versus
Information Commissioner and Ors. – Respondents
L.P.A.No.74 of 2019
Decided on 9.5.2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) There is clear distinction in between “Public Authority” within meaning of Section 2(h) and “Public Information Officer” within meaning of Section 2(m) of Right to Information Act, 2005.
(2) Award of compensation for sufferings of information seeker – Amount of compensation can only be paid in a case where complainant will be able to prove before State Information Commission for sustaining any loss or other detriment.
(3) Commission has not been conferred with power to relax period under which information has been directed to be supplied.

Headnote:

(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 – Sections 2(h) and 2(m) – Distinction in between “Public Authority” within meaning of Section 2(h) and “Public Information Officer” – There is clear distinction in between “Public Authority” within meaning of Section 2(h) and “Public Information Officer” within meaning of Section 2(m) of Act, 2005 – Public Information Officer is designated Officer to be designated by Public Authority who is custodian of record and designated Public Information Officer is required to provide information deriving from custody of Public Authority and that is the reason obligation has been casted upon Public Authority as per provision of Section 4 of Act, 2005 to maintain all records. (Paras 17 and 20)

(B) Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 19(8)(b) – Award of compensation for sufferings of information seeker – Amount of compensation can only be paid in a case where complainant will be able to prove before State Information Commission for sustaining any loss or other detriment – When amount of compensation has been decided by Information Commission to be imposed upon Public Authority, it is bounden duty of State or Central Information Commission to consider the fact on the basis of pleading made on behalf of complainant for loss or other detriment suffered and in absence thereof, there cannot be order of compensation to be imposed upon Public Authority – Part of order of liability of compensation which has been inflicted upon writ petitioner, in capacity of designated Public Information Officer, has been considered to be a wrong order passed in exercise of power conferred under Section 19(8)(b) of Act, 2005 instead of casting such liability upon Public Authority – Part of order whereby and whereunder direction has been passed for compensating complainant by making payment to the tune of Rs.40,000/- in her favour in exercise of power conferred under Section 19(8)(b) of Act, 2005, quashed and set aside. (Paras 20 to 22)

(C) Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 20 – Power to impose penalty – Commission has been conferred with power to inflict penalty or make recommendation for initiation of departmental proceeding, if information sought for is not provided within stipulated time provided under statute – Commission has not been conferred with power to relax period under which information has been directed to be supplied – Information, in any case, has to be provided within time stipulated under Sub-Section (1) of Section 7 of Act, 2005 wherein period of 30 days has been provided – Once State Information Commission has come to conclusion about non-furnishing of required information within stipulated period, it was bounden duty of State Information Commission to pass order under Section 20(1) of Act, 2005 by imposing penalty as provided thereunder and thereafter to make recommendation to initiate disciplinary action against Public Information Officer – Act, 2005 has been enacted to provide for setting up practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in working of every public authority – On technicalities nobody can be allowed to take advantage otherwise, purpose for which Act has been enacted will ultimately be frustrated – Matter remitted before State Information Commission for passing appropriate order. (Paras 27, 28, 29 and 33)

(D) Interpretation of Statute – It is cardinal rule of interpretation that where statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in manner prescribed and not in any other way. (Para 31)

Result: Appeal disposed of with observation and direction.