- (1.) This application has been filed for quashing the order contained in memo No. 9726 dated 02.12.2014 and memo No. 393 dated 13th of January, 2015, whereby the Chief Information Commissioner has directed the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs. 30,000/- to Respondent No. 7 for delay in giving the information.
(2.) It appears that Respondent No. 7 had filed an application under the Right to Information Act on 28.10.2013 for supplying the information regarding the proposed house map deposited by the Respondent No. 7 for sanction before Gumla Nagar Palika Panchayat. It appears that the application of Respondent No. 7 remain pending for inordinate period. Thereafter Respondent No. 7 filed an appeal before the Commission. The Commission vide letter No. 7342 dated 27.08.2014 directed the petitioner to supply the information and further directed the petitioner to show cause as to why respondent No. 7 be not compensated in terms of Section 19 (8) (b) of the Right to Information Act. It appears that thereafter on 09.09.2014 information was given to the Respondent No. 7. It appears that petitioner, who is also Public Information Officer of Gumla Nagar Palika Panchayat, has not filed any show cause in response to letter dated 27/08/2014, nor the petitioner appeared before the Commission on the date fixed for hearing. The Commission on the next date has concluded that petitioner was negligent in providing information within the time stipulated under the Act, therefore liable to compensate Respondent No. 7 under Section 19 (8) (b) of the Right to Information Act 2005. Accordingly, the Commission directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 30,000/- to Respondent No. 7 as compensation. Against that, present writ application filed.
(3.) Sri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no opportunity of hearing given to the petitioner, thus, the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that while deciding the appeal, the Commission has decided the dispute between the parties, therefore said order is illegal.;