JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the first respondent in case No.56820/Enquiry/C/2013 dated 01.04.2014 to the petitioner, and quash the same.) 1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated 01.04.2014, wherein the first respondent has directed the petitioner to pay compensation of a sum of Rs.10,000/-, in exercise of its power, under Section 19 (8) (b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 2. The second respondent through an application dated 01.08.2013 sought for his marksheet for the 12th standard examination which he had written in the year 2008. On receipt of the same, the concerned school through communication dated 01.09.2013 informed the second respondent that no marksheet was received by the school from the Director of Government examination. On receipt of this information, the second respondent made an application dated 27.09.2013 before the petitioner and sought for certain information including the marksheet for the 12th standard examination which he wrote in the year 2008. 3. The second respondent did not get any response from the petitioner and hence he filed an appeal before the first respondent on 06.12.2013. The first respondent through the impugned proceedings dated 01.04.2014 found that there was an unexplained delay of five months in providing the information to the second respondent and there was also no proof of the second respondent being provided with the marksheet which he had sought for. Hence, the first respondent in exercise of powers under Section 19 (8) (b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 directed the petitioner to pay a compensation of a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court. 4. Heard C.Selvaraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan, the learned counsel for the first respondent. 5. The petitioner has primarily raised two grounds in this Writ Petition. The first ground that was raised by the petitioner is that the information that was sought for by the second respondent viz., furnishing of marksheet, will not fall within the definition of an ''Information'' as defined under Section 2 (f) of the Act. 5. The petitioner has primarily raised two grounds in this Writ Petition. The first ground that was raised by the petitioner is that the information that was sought for by the second respondent viz., furnishing of marksheet, will not fall within the definition of an ''Information'' as defined under Section 2 (f) of the Act. The second ground that was raised by the petitioner is that immediately after the receipt of the application from the second respondent, steps were taken by the petitioner to collect the hall ticket of the petitioner from the concerned school. Thereafter, the second respondent was also directed to send a copy of the SSLC marksheet and the second respondent through letter dated 23.12.2013 provided the SSLC marksheet. On receipt of the same, the second respondent was informed through communication dated 20.01.2014 that his marksheet has been sent to the concerned school and he can receive it from the Headmaster of the school. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the delay has been properly explained and there was no intentional delay on the part of the petitioner and the same did not result in any loss or detriment to the second respondent. 6. In so far as the first ground, taken by the petitioner, this Court holds that the definition of "Information" is an exhaustive definition which covers even documents and obviously a marksheet will be covered under this definition and hence the first ground raised by the petitioner is hereby rejected. 7. In the present case, the second respondent had written the examination in the year 2008 and he had approached the concerned school seeking for marksheet only during September 2013. At that point of time, the school had informed the second respondent that they did not receive the marksheet from the concerned department. Hence, the second respondent submitted an application before the petitioner on 27.09.2013 seeking for the marksheet and also certain other information. On carefully going through the records, it is seen that till 25.11.2013, the petitioner did not take any steps to ascertain the necessary particulars and did not even inform the second respondent as to what steps are being taken to provide the information. It is only on 25.11.2013, a letter was sent to the concerned school asking for a copy of the hall ticket of the second respondent. It is only on 25.11.2013, a letter was sent to the concerned school asking for a copy of the hall ticket of the second respondent. The copy of the hall ticket was sent to the petitioner through communication dated 13.12.2013. Thereafter, the petitioner directed the second respondent to send a copy of his SSLC marksheet and the same was sent to the petitioner through letter dated 23.12.2013. The second respondent was thereafter informed through communication dated 20.01.2014 that he can collect the marksheet from the Headmaster of the concerned school. 8. The unexplained delay in this case is for the period from 27.09.2013 to 25.11.2013. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, there is absolutely no explanation as to what steps were taken during this period of time. The first respondent in the impugned proceedings dated 01.04.2014 has taken this into account and has directed the petitioner to pay the compensation. The learned Standing counsel for the first respondent also brought to the notice of this Court the subsequent communication from the second respondent, wherein the second respondent informed the first respondent that till 17.04.2014, he has not received any information from the petitioner and he is being made to run from pillar to post even to get his marksheet. 9. Section 19 (8) (b) of the Act, empowers the first respondent to impose compensation for any loss or other detriment suffered by the complainant. Obviously when it involves a loss, there must be some element of proof on the part of the complainant to establish as to how he suffered a loss. However, when it comes to detriment suffered, the mere delay in providing the information can cause detriment to the complainant. This can be ascertained only on the facts of each case. In the present case, the second respondent wrote the examination in 2008 and till 2013 he did not get the marksheet. Hence, he started following it up with the school and the school informed him that they have not received the marksheet from the concerned department. The second respondent therefore submits an application before the petitioner and even after the receipt of the application, the petitioner does not take any action till 25.11.2013. Hence, he started following it up with the school and the school informed him that they have not received the marksheet from the concerned department. The second respondent therefore submits an application before the petitioner and even after the receipt of the application, the petitioner does not take any action till 25.11.2013. Even thereafter, the petitioner claims that the second respondent was informed through communication dated 20.01.2014 that the second respondent can collect the marksheet from the Headmaster of the concerned school. However, the first respondent in the impugned proceedings has given a specific finding that there was nothing on record to show that the communication dated 21.01.2014 was issued to the second respondent. The subsequent communication of the second respondent to the first respondent shows that the second respondent did not get any information till 17.04.2014. This only means that the second respondent has been put to detriment due to the delay on the part of the petitioner. Hence, the first respondent was perfectly right in exercising its jurisdiction and imposing compensation payable to the second respondent. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the first respondent. 10. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed and there shall be a direction to the petitioner to deposit the compensation within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.