LAWS(DLH)-2013-4-375

UNION OF INDIA Vs. P.K. SRIVASTAVA

Decided On April 09, 2013
UNION OF INDIA Appellant
V/S
P.K. Srivastava Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE application dated 26.3.2008, the respondent Dr. P.K. Srivastava sought certain information under Right to Information Act, 2005. On not receiving any response, he made a complaint in this regard to the Central Information Commission. The desired information, however, came to be supplied to the respondent vide letter dated 9.10.2009. It was complained by the respondent that had the desired information been supplied to him in time, he would have convinced the Ministry of Textile and Central Silk Board to induct and give him in situ promotion to him to the post of Scientist -D with effect from 30.8.2006 and the delay in furnishing of the said information by CPIO, DoPT, Government of India had caused irreversible loss of status, dignity, mental peace and recurrent financial loss. After hearing the respondent/complainant and the concerned CPIO, the Central Information Commission vide order dated 31.12.2009, awarded compensation amounting to Rs. 43,240/ - to the complainant/respondent, comprising Rs. 23,240/ - for ten visits to and fro Allahabad to pursue the case before the Central Administrative Tribunal and Rs. 20,000/ - for staying for at least two nights per visit. The aforesaid order was passed in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Commission under Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act. Being aggrieved from the order of the Commission, the appellant file W.P(C) No. 4847/2010. The aforesaid writ petition have been dismissed vide impugned order dated 22.7.2010, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal. It has been contended by Mr. S.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant that since no appeal before the Commission was filed by the respondent, it had no power to award compensation in terms of Section 19(8)(b) of the said Act and consequently the order passed by the Commission was without jurisdiction.

(2.) SECTION 19 of the Right to Information Act, to the extent it is relevant for our purpose reads as under:

(3.) IN its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to -