Introduction:

In the case of Amit Anand vs. Bihar Information Commission and Others, the Patna High Court addressed the issue of compensation under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner, Amit Anand, sought compensation for delayed information from the Bihar School Examination Board (BSEB). The Court’s decision emphasised the necessity of demonstrating actual loss or detriment to claim compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act.

Arguments:

Petitioner’s Arguments:

Amit Anand argued that he was entitled to compensation due to the delay in receiving information from the BSEB. He referenced a previous case where compensation was awarded to Payal Kumari and others under similar circumstances. Anand contended that the delay caused him detriment, warranting compensation.

Respondents’ Arguments:

The Bihar Information Commission and BSEB countered that Anand did not demonstrate any actual loss or detriment resulting from the delay. They highlighted that Anand had not challenged the Commission’s order dated 16.08.2019, which disposed of his appeal without awarding compensation. Furthermore, they pointed out that Anand did not file an application before the State Information Officer seeking compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma, presiding over the case, concluded that Anand failed to provide evidence of actual loss or detriment due to the delayed information. The Court emphasised that compensation under Section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act requires the applicant to demonstrate tangible harm suffered. Additionally, the Court noted that Anand did not challenge the Commission’s earlier order or file a specific application for compensation. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.