Compensation claims under the Right to Information Act require proof of malice or undue delay, which was not established.

Party-in-Person : Mr.R.Vijayan For the Respondents : Mr.C.Harsha Raj Additional Government Pleader for R1 and R2 ORDER (Order of the Court was made by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)

This review application has been filed seeking to review the order passed by the Division Bench dated 12.03.2024 made in W.A.No.3024 of 2023.

2. The applicant in the review application was the information seeker under the Right to Information Act, 2005 . He sought certain information from the Public Information Officer, which was not supplied to him. He had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority under the , where also, he could not succeed. Against which, he filed a second appeal or a further appeal before the State Information Commissioner, where, the order passed by the First Appellate Authority, having been considered, was reversed and the State Information Commissioner, being the Second Appellate Authority had given directions to furnish the information sought by the applicant within a period of fifteen days. The said information had been supplied to the applicant. 3. Not satisfied with the same, the applicant filed W.P.No.18300 of 2013, where, he sought a prayer of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records in respect of the enquiry of the case No.43133 of 2011, altered as case No.4306 of 2013, conducted by the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission and quash the same and direct the first respondent therein to give the information sought under the Right to information Act, 2005, with exemplary cost. The said writ petition, having been considered, was disposed by the order of the Writ Court vide the order dated

26.10.2022, where, the following orders have been passed:-

“3. It is now submitted by the petitioner that the information as sought has been furnished with delay. However, he has been put into lot of agony and torture all these years and therefore, he seeks compensation.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. The very prayer in the Writ Petition itself is directing the 1st respondent to give information sought under the Right to Information Act,2005 and no compensation whatsoever is sought. Therefore, the impugned order itself directed the information to be furnished by the 1st respondent and now the information has already been furnished, this Court is of the view that the question of awarding compensation does not arise at all. Only when the State Information Commission finding that information has been withheld without any reasonable cause and refused to receive any application or information or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information, the maximum penalty can be twenty five thousand rupees. Whereas the entire impugned order does not speak about any malafide action on the part of the respondents or withheld the documents without any reasonable cause.

6. In such view of the matter, the compensation cannot be ordered in this Writ Petition. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

4. Aggrieved over the said order, he has preferred an intra-Court appeal in W.A.No.3024 of 2023, where, the applicant's main contention was that there has been a delay in furnishing the information, therefore, the applicant is entitled to get compensation. The said issue, having been considered, the Division Bench has held as follows:-

“9. It would appear that no delay was caused after the second appeal filed by the appellant was allowed. The Second Appellate Authority had directed the first respondent to supply the information within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said order. The information was supplied within a period of twelve days.”

5. Therefore, it was the factual finding of th