JUDGMENT : W.P.(C) No. 4068 of 2012 has been filed for quashing/setting aside the order dated 26.11.2010 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Dhurwa, Ranchi in Appeal No. 488/2009, whereby compensation of Rs.70,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner under Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2005”) without taking into consideration the information furnished by the respondent no. 2 to the State Information Commission vide letter dated 31.10.2009 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and without there being any finding to the effect that the petitioner – University had acted in such manner causing loss or detriment to the respondent no. 3. 2. W.P.(C) No. 4078 of 2012 has been filed for quashing/setting aside the order dated 21.01.2011 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by the Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Dhurwa, Ranchi in Appeal No. 168/2009, whereby compensation of Rs.40,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 without taking into consideration the information furnished by the petitioner to the respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 22.06.2009 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), reply of the respondent no. 2 dated 23.09.2009 submitted before the respondent no. 1 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and the information furnished by the respondent no. 2 to the respondent no. 1 vide letter dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). 3. In both the writ petitions, the petitioner has wrongly used the word „fine? instead of word „compensation? in paragraph-1 as well as in the prayer portion of the same, as the impugned orders dated 26.11.2010 and 21.01.2011 passed in respective writ petitions suggest that the petitioner has been imposed compensation of Rs.70,000/- and Rs.40,000/- exercising power under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Samshul Haque [the respondent no. 3 of W.P.(C) No. 4068 of 2012] and Shailesh [the respondent no. 3 of W.P.(C) No. 4078 of 2012] had preferred their respective applications seeking information under the Act, 2005. They filed First Appeal before the Competent Authority and Second Appeal before the Jharkhand State Information Commission. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Samshul Haque [the respondent no. 3 of W.P.(C) No. 4068 of 2012] and Shailesh [the respondent no. 3 of W.P.(C) No. 4078 of 2012] had preferred their respective applications seeking information under the Act, 2005. They filed First Appeal before the Competent Authority and Second Appeal before the Jharkhand State Information Commission. During pendency of the appeal before the Commission, the Public Information Officer provided the required information to the complainants, however, the Information Commissioner directed the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.70,000/- [in W.P.(C) No. 4068 of 2012] and Rs.40,000/- [in W.P.(C) No. 4078 of 2012] without recording any finding to the effect that the petitioner had acted in such a manner causing loss or detriment to the complainants. It is further submitted that the petitioner could not have been held liable to pay compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 in absence of any finding that the complainants had suffered any loss or other detriment due to any action/inaction on the part of the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 of W.P.(C) No. 4068 of 2012 refers to the copy of memo of appeal dated 05.10.2009 preferred before the Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and submits that in the memo of appeal itself, it was mentioned that valuable time of the respondent no. 3 as well as the Commission was wasted causing financial loss to them which was not in accordance with law. 6. So far as the respondent no. 3 of W.P.(C) No. 4078 of 2012 is concerned, it has been recorded in the order dated 05.01.2023 that the notice was duly served to him. 7. However, no one appears on behalf of the said respondent. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. The petitioner–University is admittedly a public authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act, 2005. Hence, both the writ petitions are maintainable. 10. In both the writ petitions, the Information Commissioner has imposed penalty and has ordered for initiation of departmental proceeding under Section 20(1) and 20(2) respectively of the Act, 2005 against the Public Information Officer as well as has imposed compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 payable by the petitioner to the complainants. 10. In both the writ petitions, the Information Commissioner has imposed penalty and has ordered for initiation of departmental proceeding under Section 20(1) and 20(2) respectively of the Act, 2005 against the Public Information Officer as well as has imposed compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 payable by the petitioner to the complainants. The petitioner herein has challenged the impugned orders to the extent of imposing compensation to be paid by it to the complainants under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on the judgment of learned Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of “Harishankar Barik Vs. Information Commissioner & Ors.” (L.P.A No. 74 of 2019), wherein it has been held that there is clear distinction between the „Public Authority? within the meaning of Section 2(h) and the „Public Information Officer? within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Act, 2005. The Public Authority is the custodian of the record whereas the Public Information Officer is required to provide information deriving from the custody of the Public Authority. Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 confers power upon the State Information Commission to pass an order upon the Public Authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or any other detriment suffered. Thus, the amount of compensation can be paid only in a case where the complainant has been able to prove before the State Information Commission regarding sustaining any loss or other detriment. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner puts further reliance on a judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “Public Information Officer, Ranchi University Vs. The Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission & Anr.” reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Jhar 5324, wherein learned Single Judge has quashed the order of compensation observing that the Information Commissioner had awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- without recording a finding on the issue of mental torture, agony and harassment to the complainant as well as that the complainant had not sought award of compensation for the delay in providing information and harassment caused to him by filing any application with a computation chart on that aspect. 13. 13. On bare perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that the order for payment of compensation to the complainants have been passed to compensate them for their mental and physical torture on account of not providing the information by the Public Information Officer. However, there is no finding of the Information Commissioner on the issue that due to not providing information to the complainants, they suffered any loss or other detriment which is a condition precedent for awarding compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005. 14. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 of W.P.(C) No. 4068 of 2012 is that in the memo of appeal filed before the Commission, it was specifically averred that financial loss was caused to him by not providing the information in time. However, it does not appear from the record that except the said statement, any such detail was provided by the respondent no. 3 in the second appeal that he suffered loss for the delay caused in providing the information. Moreover, the Information Commissioner while imposing the compensation against the petitioner (the public authority) under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 has also not given any finding with respect to the manner in which the respondent no. 3 suffered loss or other detriment. 15. That apart, the compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 is to be paid by the Public Authority being the custodian of record when the information is not provided to the applicant due to inaction on its part. The Information Commissioner while awarding compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005 did not specifically observe that the petitioner committed fault in not providing information to the complainants, rather the entire allegation in the impugned order has been levelled against the Public Information Officer i.e., the respondent no. 2 herein. It was alleged against the respondent no. 2 that he knowingly did not provide information to the applicants. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 also puts reliance on a judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “The State of Jharkhand & Anr. Vs. 2 herein. It was alleged against the respondent no. 2 that he knowingly did not provide information to the applicants. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 also puts reliance on a judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “The State of Jharkhand & Anr. Vs. The Information Commissioner & Ors.” [W.P.(C) No. 5519 of 2013], wherein it has been held that the object of the Act, 2005 is to compensate the complainant by the Public Authority who is supposed to keep the document in safe custody and if the document is not found available, the compensation is required to be paid by the public authority. In the present case, it has nowhere been observed in the impugned orders that the Public Authority had failed to discharge its duty in keeping the required documents properly and as such the observation made in the said case will not be applicable here. 17. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the impugned orders dated 26.11.2010 and 21.01.2011 passed by the Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi in Appeal No. 488/2009 and Appeal No. 168/2009 are partly quashed to the extent of imposition of compensation upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs.70,000/- and Rs.40,000/- respectively. 18. The writ petitions are accordingly partly allowed.