ORDER : 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and propriety of the order dated 18.08.2015 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Raipur in Appeal No.94/2011, whereby the second appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (In short “the Act of 2005”) has been dismissed, but has awarded compensation to him to the tune of Rs.500/- payable by the petitioner-the Public Information Officer, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur within a period of 30 days. 2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent No.1-Abdul Kalim Qureshi has moved an application on 21.08.2008 (Annexure P/2) while addressing to Hon’ble the Chief Justice, High Court of Chhattisgarh by submitting inter alia, while referring to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Om Prakash Jaiswal vs. D.K. Mittal & Another, reported in AIR 2000 S.C. 1136 , that since the stay order passed on 25.08.2001 in W.P.No.5814 of 2000 has not been complied with by the petitioner of the said writ petition, namely, Ranveer Singh Chane nor by his legal representatives and that by bringing the said fact, has prayed for a suitable advice as under:- “Your honour is therefore prayed to order enquiry into this episode in light of contents recorded at para 17 of Judgment reported at AIR 2000 SC 1136 , and to convey a suitable advise whether the undersigned is required to lodge a separate complaint u/s 346(1) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 2007 & obliged.” 3. After filing of the aforesaid application, he moved another application on 17.11.2008 (Annexure P/3) while invoking the provision prescribed under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act of 2005, before the Public Information Officer of the High Court of Chhattisgarh for taking an action on his abovementioned application dated 21.08.2008, as under:- “Action taken on application dt. 21/08/08 and advise sought at last para of the said application is prayed to be conveyed.” 4. In response to the aforesaid application, it was informed by the Assistant Public Information Officer-cum-Deputy Registrar, High Court of Chhattisgarh, as under:- “As the writ petition is already pending, therefore, any application for redressal of your grievance can be filed in the said writ petition.” 5. In response to the aforesaid application, it was informed by the Assistant Public Information Officer-cum-Deputy Registrar, High Court of Chhattisgarh, as under:- “As the writ petition is already pending, therefore, any application for redressal of your grievance can be filed in the said writ petition.” 5. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid reply, an appeal was preferred by the said respondent under Section 19 of the Act of 2005 before the Registrar General-Cum-First Appellate Authority, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, who in turn, has allowed the same in part vide its order dated 07.04.2010 (Annexure P/6) and the Assistant Public Information Officer was directed to provide the details available on record with regard to status of the said application as moved by him on 21.08.2008. 6. It appears that in pursuance to the said direction, the information was provided by the petitioner on 26.07.2010, though there was some delay in furnishing the same. It appears further that despite the furnishing of the said information, yet a second appeal was preferred by respondent No.1 on 30.08.2010 under Section 19(3) of the Act of 2005 before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, who in turn, after considering the explanation offered by the petitioner for providing the delayed information, has accepted the same vide its order impugned dated 18.08.2015 and accordingly, the appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 has been closed/filed. It is, however, to be seen at this juncture that despite accepting the explanation offered by the petitioner in supplying the delayed information and that by closing the said second appeal as such, it was observed by the Appellate Authority that since there was delay in furnishing the information, therefore, in exercise of the powers provided under Section 19(8) (b) of the Act of 2005, the alleged amount of compensation has been imposed upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs.500/- while directing to deposit the same within a period of 30 days. This is the order, which has been impugned in this petition mainly on the ground that in absence of recording a specific finding in respect of any loss or other detriment suffered by the said respondent as provided under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act of 2015, no amount of compensation as such could be made and in support, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Public Information Officer, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur vs. Chhattisgarh Information Commission and another, reported in 2017 SCC Online Chh 1384. 7. Since the aforesaid amount of compensation has been directed to be paid by the Appellate Authority in exercise of the powers enumerated under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act of 2005, therefore, it is necessary to examine the said provision, which reads as under:- CHAPTER V POWERS AND FUNCTIONS OF THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONS, APPEAL AND PENALTIES 19. Appeal.--- (1 to 7) ------ xxx ----- (8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to, – (a) ------ xxx ------- (b) require the public authority to compensate the complaint for any loss or other detriment suffered; (c & d) ----- xxx -------- 8. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that the Appellate Authority, i.e. the State Information Commission has authority and jurisdiction to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered by him, but, the compensation payable under the said provision must be “for any loss or other detriment suffered” on account of denial of information under the Act of 2005. Therefore, before awarding the amount of compensation, a finding to this effect is to be recorded as held by the Delhi High Court in the matter of N.T.P.C. Ltd. vs. Mohd. Samad Khan, reported in (2010) 168 DLT 141 , wherein it has been held at paragraph 17, as under:- “17. The ambit of the power under Section 19(8)(b) has to be determined by the scope of the powers of the CIC generally under Section 19, and as an Appellate Authority in terms of Section 19(1) to (8). Samad Khan, reported in (2010) 168 DLT 141 , wherein it has been held at paragraph 17, as under:- “17. The ambit of the power under Section 19(8)(b) has to be determined by the scope of the powers of the CIC generally under Section 19, and as an Appellate Authority in terms of Section 19(1) to (8). The compensation payable under Section 19(8)(b) is "for any loss or other detriment suffered", on account of the denial of the information under the RTI Act and not just about any loss or detriment suffered by the applicant. In the context of the present case if the CIC had found that the Respondent was unfairly denied by the NTPC, the information sought for by him, the CIC was next to determine the precise loss suffered by the Respondent on account of such denial of information. Thereafter it could pass appropriate orders to compensate the Respondent for the loss or detriment suffered. In the present case, there is no finding by the CIC that the NTPC had in its records a survey report which it unfairly denied to the Respondent. This factual determination was essential for the CIC to proceed to determine the loss suffered by the Respondent on account of the denial of such information. Thereafter under Section 19(8)(b) RTI Act it was in the discretion of the CIC to award compensation. Even while exercising that power a finding would have to be rendered by the CIC on the extent of loss, even approximately, suffered by the person to whom such information ought to have been furnished. This is because the compensation that has to be awarded under Section 19(8)(b) is for the loss or the detriment suffered" on account of the denial of such information and not just about any loss or detriment suffered by such person. There is no such determination by the CIC in the present case.” 9. While placing reliance upon the aforesaid decision, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Public Information Officer, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (supra), has held that the amount of compensation cannot be made without recording a finding to this effect as such. Relevant observation made at para 9 reads as under:- 9. Therefore, what flows from Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act and decision of the Delhi High Court in Mohd. Relevant observation made at para 9 reads as under:- 9. Therefore, what flows from Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act and decision of the Delhi High Court in Mohd. Samad Khan’s case (supra) is that the Commission has authority and jurisdiction to impose compensation only on account of denial of information under the RTI Act, whereas in the instant case, the Commission has imposed compensation upon the petitioner without recording such finding and without there being any reasonable cause, which is unsustainable and bad in law.” 10. Applying the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions to the case in hand, the imposition of compensation as made by the Appellate Authority-Chhattisgarh State Information Commission vide its order impugned dated 18.08.2015 (Annexure P/1), while closing the said appeal preferred by the respondent No.1 after accepting the explanation offered by the petitioner in supplying the delayed information and, that too without recording a finding as required to be made by virtue of the abovementioned provisions, cannot be held to be sustainable in the eye of law, which, therefore, deserves to be and is hereby set aside. 11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. No order as to costs.