S.19(8)(b) RTI Act | No Compensation Can Be Granted Unless Actual Loss Or Detriment Due To Delayed Information Shown: Patna High Court

While dismissing a petition filed by an individual seeking compensation for delayed information under the Right to Information Act 2005, the Patna High Court has reiterated that compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act can only be granted when the applicant demonstrates actual loss or detriment suffered due to the delay in receiving the requested information.Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma presiding over the case observed, “this Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not produced/demonstrated the extent of loss or detriment suffered by him for award of compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005 and apart from that, the petitioner has not challenged the order dated 16.08.2019 by which the appeal of the petitioner was disposed of by the State Information Commission without awarding the compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005.”The development comes in a petition filed by one Amit Anand, seeking a direction to the State Information Commission to grant compensation to the petitioner as granted to one Payal Kumari and eight others which was disposed of by a common judgment in 2019.As per the factual matrix of the case, Anand, had filed an RTI application in 2017 seeking information from the Bihar School Examination Board (BSEB). Upon receiving no information, he filed a first appeal in September, 2017 and two months later a second appeal before the State Information Commission. During the pendency of the appeal, the Commission directed the Public Information Officer of the Board to provide the information to the petitioner within a fortnight. Apart from that the Commissioner also directed the First Appellate Authority, Bihar School Examination Board to file representation within a fortnight stating therein the name of the hearing officer and employee and reason for delayed disposal of the appeal.The Public Information Officer forwarded the information to the petitioner stating that the information requested by him via the RTI Application was not available in the official record, and was vague, and thus it couldn't be provided. The Commission observed severe delays across 16 cases and decided to hear all the cases together seeing the explanation submitted by the Public Information Officer. The Commission also came to the conclusion that the same Public Authority of the Board due to its defective modus operandi had caused delay in providing information with regard to all the cases and therefore, the Commission ordered the Chairman and Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna to submit explanation through the Public Information Officer within a fortnight as to why not under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005, compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs be not imposed upon their Public Authority and be distributed equally amongst all the appellants. However, no particular compensation order was issued in the case of the petitioner.The Court in its order, took note of a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Board stating therein that the Commission had not granted any compensation to the petitioner and the petitioner had not challenged the order of the Commission by which the appeal of the petitioner was disposed of. Further it was argued that the petitioner had not filed any application before the State Information Officer seeking award of compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005 and had not produced any material before the Commission to demonstrate the actual loss or detriment, if any, suffered by him due to delayed information provided to him by the Public Authority of the Board.The Court noted, “In the present case, the petitioner has not produced any chit of paper/materials whatsoever either before the State Information Commission or before this Court, to demonstrate the extent of loss or detriment suffered by him, for award of compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act, 2005. Apart from that the writ petitioner cannot claim parity with other cases, wherein the State Information Commission has awarded compensation.”“In cases wherein, the State Information Commission has awarded compensation for delayed or non-supply of information, the matter related to nonsupply of answer books despite making an application under the RTI Act, 2005, whereas, the petitioner in the present case had sought a copy of the enlishment register in which his name is recorded. The said information was provided to the petitioner though belatedly and even the petitioner had not challenged the order dated 16.08.2019 by which the appeal no. A-5980 of 2018 was disposed of by the State Information Commission,” the Court further added.Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.Case Title: Amit Anand vs Bihar Information Commission and Others LL Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Pat) 34Click Here To Read Judgment

S.19(8)(b) RTI Act | No Compensation Can Be Granted Unless Actual Loss Or Detriment Due To Delayed Information Shown: Patna High Court

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

S.19(8)(b) RTI Act | No Compensation Can Be Granted Unless Actual Loss Or Detriment Due To Delayed Information Shown: Patna High Court

Bhavya Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers