9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompensate a complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered. The CIC has no jurisdiction to enter into the controversy whether respondent no.1‟s detention for the extended period was justified or not. This controversy is completely alien to and outside the purview of the Act. Petition disposed off. - W.P.(C) 621/2017 And CM No. 2830/2017 - - - Dated:- 19-2-2018 - MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, J. For The Petitioner : Mr Satyakam, Addl. Standing Counsel For The Respondents : Mr O. P. Gandhi ORDER VIBHU BAKHRU, J 1. The petitioner impugns an order dated 29.09.2016 (hereafter the impugned order‟) passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter the CIC‟) in an appeal preferred by re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the trial Court at Faridabad. However, the jail authorities had no communication as to the facts of that case. The petitioner claims that after respondent no.1 had completed the sentence, the jail authorities requested for obtaining an order from the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Faridabad for release of respondent no.1 on 16.08.2014. Since, 17.08.2014 was a Sunday and 18.08.2014 was a gazetted holiday, the Jail Authorities were provided the necessary orders only on 19.08.2014 and respondent no.1 was released on the very same day. 7. Respondent no.1 disputes the same; according to him, he had completed serving his sentence on 02.08.2014 and was kept in detention for a further period till 19.08.2014 without any authority of law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4; ( b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; ( c) impose any of the penalties provided under this Act; ( d) reject the application. 11. This Court is of the view that the aforesaid provision must be read in the context of Section 19 of the Act. Section 19 (1) of the Act provides for an appeal to the First Appellate Authority (FAA) against any order of any Central Public Information Officer or any State Public Information Officer. Section 19(3) of the Act provides for a second appeal before the CIC or the State Information Commission (SIC) against an order of the FAA. Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act. The petitioner claims that the information as sought for by respondent no.1 under the aforementioned two applications (application dated 13.10.2014 and 08.11.2014) were provided to him. This is disputed by respondent no.1. 14. Respondent no.1 filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) under Section 19(1) of the Act which was disposed of on 24.11.2014. Respondent no.1 filed another appeal with regard to the same application (application dated 13.10.2014) and that too was disposed of on 12.12.2014. Respondent no.1 also filed an appeal in respect of his second application under the Act (application dated 08.11.2014), which was disposed of by an order dated 16.12.2014. 15. Respondent no.1 filed second appeals (two i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 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 Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
