ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Mon, Sep 23, 2019
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> High Court >> Compensation
Supreme Court(Compensation)/ CIC(Compensation)
S.No. HIGH COURT CASE DATE OF JUDGMENT JUDGMENT
1 CWP No. 9739 of 2016 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(144.04 KB) pdf icon
11 Jan, 2017 Pawan Kumar Gupta vs The Central Information Commission & Anr.

Section 19(8)(b) Compensation to be awarded to the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that he had become an Advocate in the year 1996 and was doing his practice at Jind and Narwana Courts. He had applied for empanelment as an Advocate with the Bank of Baroda, Narwana Branch but could not be selected by the bank and resultantly request had been made to the bank for providing the reasons for rejecting his empanelment. The respondent-bank stated that the empanelment of the Lawyer on the bank panel is the discretion of the respondent no. 2 and the number of Lawyers to be empanelled is again the discretion of the respondent-bank. No right of empanelment can be claimed and only the suitable candidates can be considered for the said purpose.

The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana held that the engagement of Lawyers per se, as such, and the right of empanelment is no vested right for which the petitioner can seek enforcement or information. The right of information, as such, which is sought was qua the comparative statistics, which had been duly supplied to him. In such cases, once the respondent-bank had appropriately acted upon the request within the appropriate time, no case can be made out for compensation as has been pleaded. The empanelment process and the passing of any orders as such of rejecting the case of the petitioner have been amply replied no case as such is made out for grant of compensation to the complainant for any loss or any detriment suffered under section 19(8)(b) of the Act since the petitioner has no such legal vested right for seeking the empanelment as such.
2 CWP No. 17094 of 2012
(140.90 KB) pdf icon
26 Oct, 2016 Dr. Anil Pannikker vs Central Information Commission, New Delhi and Ors.

The information which has been sought is regarding a list of cases where actual possession of the properties under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 was sought for, and whether they have been sold or not because of higher reserve price fixation etc. The information had been denied by the bank on account of fact that it relates to commercial confidence of the bank, and hence exempted under section 8(1)(d) of the Act. Notice of the appeal was issued on 1212.2013 for 28.02.2013 and the same was disposed of, on the same day. Notice of hearing was only received on 28.02.2013 at 1:00 p.m., therefore, hearing could not be attended by the official of the bank and an opportunity of hearing was again sought.

The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that the petitioner is a bank, and had only been put to notice on 12.02.2013 for 28.02.2013. Summons were received on the same date and it would not have been practically possible for it to prepare its defence, and appear on the same day, as has been notified in the summons/notice of hearing. In such circumstances, it would be appropriate, if the respondent- Commission decides the appeal after allowing the petitioner bank-to participate in the hearing. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is remanded to be decided afresh by the respondent-Commission.
3 W.P. 27355 (W) of 2012 HIGH COURT OF WEST BENGAL
(238.40 KB) pdf icon
31 Aug, 2016 Dr. Nazrul Islam Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.

The Commission observed that the Home Department had dealt with the petitioner’s query under the RTI Act in a highly irregular and improper and casual way ignoring the fact that the provisions of the said Act are mandatory, time specific and exacting in nature.

The Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta held that the order of the Commission has to be read as a whole. On a meaningful reading of the order it is clear that the Commission came to a definite finding upon hearing all the parties concerned that there was gross laches and negligence on the part of the said Departments causing detriment and harassment to the petitioner which warranted award of compensation to the petitioner. The State Government has not challenged the Commission’s order dated 15 December, 2009 whereby it has been directed to pay compensation to the petitioner. The State Government is, therefore, not entitled to raise a plea to resist enforcement of the order of compensation that the order is wrong on merits or does not indicated the nature or extent of loss, detriment or harassment suffered by the petitioner. In any event, the harassment and detriment suffered by the petitioner due to complete nonchalant and irresponsible attitude of the Home Department, (RTI) verging on being mala fide and wholly unbefitting of a public authority, is writ large on the factual canvass of this case. In fact, the Department should recover from its concerned officers the compensation that the Department has to pay to the affected citizen. By not imposing penalty on the concerned officers under section 20 of the RTI Act and instead by awarding compensation against the Home Department under section 19 of the Act, the Commission has not committed any error of law, far less a jurisdictional error which would render its order void and unenforceable. Department is directed to pay to the petitioner compensation of Rs.50,000/- as awarded by the State Information Commission along with simple interest at the rate of 10 per cent annum. The State Government shall also pay to the petitioner costs of this application assessed at Rs.20,000/- for causing unnecessary further harassment to the petitioner by compelling him to approach this Court for enforcing the order of the State Information Commission which is perfectly legal and valid and ought to have been complied with by the State Government.
4 Writ Petition No. 6961 of 2012 HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(228.68 KB) pdf icon
27 Feb, 2015 Vivek Vishnupant Kulkarni versus The State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai & SIC

The issue was in respect of missing records in the Urban Development Ministry, Government of Maharashtra.

The Court ordered to (i) initiate criminal investigation procedure; (ii) lodge FIR and to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible and preferably within the period of six months from the date of registration of the first information report and (iii) pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner.
5 LPA 195/2011 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
(117.79 KB) pdf icon
09 Apr, 2013 Union of India Vs. P.K. Srivastava

Section 19(8)(b) Award of Compensation to the Complainant- Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that it is quite evident from a perusal of the above referred provisions contained in section 19 of the Act that compensation to the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered by him can be awarded by the Commission only while deciding an appeal filed before it. Similar power can also be exercised by the State Information Commission. While deciding a complain received from the respondent, the Commission could only have imposed penalty prescribed in sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Act, but could not have awarded any compensation to him in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by section 19(8)(b) of the Act.
Total Case uploaded: 5