Complainant wanted compensation u/s 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act for not providing information u/s 7(1) of the Act - CIC: Compensation can be ordered if second appeal u/s 19 of the Act is submitted; the plea for payment of compensation was summarily rejected
15 Sep, 2017
Facts:
The Complainant vide RTI application dated 24.03.2015 sought information on 2 points; action taken report on his complaint dated 05.02.2015 and copy of the correspondences related to the same.
The CPIO’s reply is not on record. The complainant filed complaint before this Commission on 14.12.2015 requesting for compensation u/s 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the RTI Act.
Grounds for complaint:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Order
Complainant : Representative of complainant (Shri R.Ojha)
Respondent : APIO, Shri S.Bhattacharjee, APO(Howrah)
During the hearing the respondent APIO submitted that they had provided the requisite information vide their letter dated 13.05.2015 which is just and proper and the case should be dismissed. Since the same was not available in the case record, the respondent PIO was asked to read the same over the VC facility. He was intimated to send a copy of the same to the Commission through e-mail for record.
It was also seen that the complainant wanted compensation u/s 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the RTI Act for not providing information u/s 7(1) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 5 or the proviso to subsection (3) of section 6, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request under section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in sections 8 and 9: of the same Act. It can be mentioned here that compensation can be ordered to be provided if second appeal u/s 19 of the RTI Act is submitted to the Commission. In the present case, a complaint was filed u/s 18 of the RTI Act under which there is no provision for granting compensation. Instead of going into merit of the case, the plea for payment of compensation is accordingly summarily rejected.
On perusal of the case record, it is seen that reply provided is just and proper, hence, nothing much remains in this case.
Since the information provided is just and proper, interference of the Commission is not called for. With the above observation, the complaint case is closed. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
[Amitava Bhattacharyya]
Information Commissioner
Citation: Rajesh Kumar v. Railway Board in File No.: CIC/CC/C/2016/000049+051-AB, Date of hearing: 08.08.2017