Compensation under RTI Act must relate to actual loss suffered due to information denial.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order, dated 22.9.2008 (Annexure P / 1) and order dated 24.10.2008 (Annexure P / 2) by which compensation of Rs. 10,000/- collectively has been imposed against the petitioner.

2. Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that compensation imposed under S.19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter called as 'RTI Act') is unsustainable and bad - in - law.

3. On the other hand, Mr.V.G.Tamaskar, learned counsel for respondent No.2, would support the impugned order.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made here - in - above and also gone through the records with utmost circumspection.

5. S.19(8)(a)(b) of the RTI Act provides as under:
'19(8) In its decision, Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to -
(a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including -
(i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form;
(ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be;
(iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information;
(iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records;
(v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials;
(vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of S.4;
(b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss for other detriment suffered;'

6. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that Central Information Commission has authority and jurisdiction to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered by him, but the compensation payable under S.19(8)(b) of the RTI Act must be 'for any loss or other detriment suffered' on account of denial of information under the RTI Act.

7. The High Court of Delhi in the matter of N.T.P.C. Ltd v. Mohd. Samad Khan , (2010) 168 DLT 141 has held as under:
'17. The ambit of the power under S.19(8)(b) has to be determined by the scope of the powers of the CIC generally under S.19, and as an Appellate Authority in terms of S.19(1) to (8). The compensation payable under S.19(8)(b) is 'for any loss or other detriment suffered', on account of the denial of the information under the RTI Act and not just about any loss or detriment suffered by the applicant. In the context of the present case if the CIC had found that the Respondent was unfairly denied by the NTPC, the information sought for by him, the CIC was next to determine the precise loss suffered by the Respondent on account of such denial of information. Thereafter it could pass appropriate orders to compensate the Respondent for the loss or detriment suffered. In the present case, there is no finding by the CIC that the NTPC had in its records a survey report which it unfairly denied to the Respondent. This factual determination was essential for the CIC to proceed to determine the loss suffered by the Respondent on account of the denial of such information. Thereafter under S.19(8)(b) RTI Act it was in the discretion of the CIC to award compensation. Even while exercising that power a finding would have to be rendered by the CIC on the extent of loss, even approximately, suffered by the person to whom such information ought to have been furnished. This is because the compensation that has to be awarded under S.19(8)(b) is for t