Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 600 (JHR)

David Balihar v. State of Jharkhand

2023-05-01

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 18th September, 2015 as well as the order dated 9th December, 2015 passed by the respondent no.2, whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- by way of demand draft to the respondent no.4 under Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘the Act, 2005’). 2. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Though the notice issued to the respondent no.4 has validly been served to him, nobody represents the said respondent also. 4. On perusal of the impugned order dated 18th September, 2015, it appears that the Information Commissioner- respondent no.2 has imposed a compensation of Rs.30,000/- upon the Public Information Officer-cum-Deputy Collector (General Section)-cum-Nazarat, Deputy Collector, East Singhbhum under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005. Subsequently, vide order dated 9th December, 2015 the respondent no.2 while fixing the date of hearing of Appeal Case no.712 of 2014 on 18th March, 2016 directed the Public Information Officer to place his case or to bring on record any order of stay passed by the High Court. 5. The respondent no.2 while passing the order dated 18th September, 2015 has perhaps misdirected himself in distinguishing between “Public Information Officer” and “Public Authority”. The said distinction has been explained by this Court in the order dated 26th April, 2023 passed in W.P.(C) No.2454 of 2015 (Anjana Das Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), paragraph nos.5 and 6 of the same read as under:- “5. On bare perusal of Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005, it would be evident that the State Information Commission or the Central Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require “public authority” to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered in the process of seeking information under the said Act. Admittedly, the petitioner is “Public Information Officer” and not the “Public Authority”. Public authority has been defined in section 2(h) of the Act, 2005, which means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted by or under the Constitution or by any other law made by Parliament as well as State Legislature, whereas the State Public Information Officer has been defined in Section 2(m) of the said Act and includes State Assistant Public Information Officer. It is also evident from the order dated 23rd January, 2015 that the respondent no.2 has treated the petitioner as a public information officer and not as a public authority. 6. Under the said circumstance, imposition of compensation of Rs.30,000/- upon the petitioner, who happened to be the Circle Officer-cum-Public Information Officer, Circle Office, Garhwa, by invoking power conferred to the Commission under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 is a serious error of law. It is also clarified that as per Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005, if at all the public information officer is found to have violated the provisions of the Act, 2005, he/she can be imposed penalty of Rs.250/- each day till the application is received or information is furnished, however, total amount of penalty cannot exceed Rs.25,000/-. Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may also recommend disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, if his/her inaction comes under the ambit of Section 20(2) of the Act, 2005.” 6. Thus, no compensation could have been imposed upon the Public Information Officer i.e. the petitioner herein invoking power under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005. The compensation can only be imposed upon the Public Authority so as to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered with respect to seeking information under the Act, 2005. The petitioner is the Public Information Officer and not the Public Authority. Under the said circumstance, the impugned order dated 18th September, 2015 cannot be sustained in law and is, accordingly, set aside. Consequently, the order 9th December, 2015 passed by the respondent no.2 is also set aside. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.