JUDGMENT : RAJESH SHANKAR, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 3 rd December, 2014 passed by the respondent no.3-The Chief Information Commissioner, Jharkhand State Information Commission, Ranchi (in short “the Commission”), the copy of which was communicated to the petitioner vide memo no.9852, dated 8 th December, 2014, whereby the petitioner being Circle Officer, Garhwa was directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- by way of demand draft to the respondent no.4 for not providing required information on the issue nos.2, 4, 10 & 12 sought by him and for the reason that the concerned officials of Garhwa district made false and misleading statement before the Commission. 2. On perusal of the impugned order dated 3 rd December, 2014 passed by the Commission, it appears that a compensation of Rs.5,000/- was imposed against the office of the Circle Officer, Garhwa under Section 19(8) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to be paid to the respondent no.4 on the ground of unnecessarily harassing the said respondent. Accordingly, the Circle Officer, Garhwa was directed to pay the said amount of compensation by way of demand draft to the respondent no.4 within 60 days from the date of the receipt of the said order. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner was not the public authority, rather she was Public Information Officer. As per the provisions of Section 19(8)(b) of the Act, 2005, the compensation can be imposed upon the public authority by the State Information Commission for any loss or other detriment suffered by the information seeker/complainant due to non/delayed supply of information sought by him/her. 4. 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 was the “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. 5. 5. The petitioner not being the public authority could not have been saddled with the compensation as imposed by the Commission vide impugned order dated 3 rd December, 2014. Under the said circumstance, the impugned order dated 3 rd December, 2014 cannot be sustained in law and the same is set-aside. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.