9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il authorities (Tihar Jail) to pay compensation to respondent no.1 at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per day for the period of four days that he had been detained in custody despite being granted bail by the concerned Court. The jail authorities have also been directed to pay a cost of Rs.1000/- to respondent no.1 for attending cases. 3. Mr Satyakam, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and the CIC has no authority to award compensation for any unjustified incarceration alleged to have been suffered by respondent no.1. 4. Respondent no.1 was convicted of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 for dishonour of cheque on the grounds of insufficiency of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to award compensation under Section 19(8) of the Act for unjustified incarceration. 9. The CIC had proceeded on the basis that in terms of Section 19(8) (b) of the Act, it had the authority to require any public authority to compensate a complainant for any loss or detriment suffered, notwithstanding, that the same is not attributable to denial of any information. 10. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Section 19 (8) of the Act, which is set out below:- "19. Appeal.-(8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to,- (a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, includ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plainant for any loss or detriment suffered. 12. It is at once clear from the scheme of Section 19 of the Act that the provisions of section 19(8) of the Act are an adjunct to the power of the CIC or the SIC to consider the appeal against the decision of the FAA. Such power is relatable to the question of furnishing the information (or denial thereof) in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The provision of Section 19(8)(b) of the Act duly empowers the CIC or the SIC as an appellate authority to compensate a complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered. However, such loss or detriment suffered must necessarily be connected to or a consequence of denial of complete information as sought for by such complainant. It is obvious t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the CIC is not related to denial of any information as sought for by respondent no.1 by way of the said applications under the Act. As noticed above, these applications were made after the petitioner had been released from custody on 19.08.2014. 17. The CIC had awarded compensation to respondent no.1 for the alleged detriment suffered by him on account of his detention for a period of four days from 15.08.2014 to 19.08.2014 which, according to the CIC, was not justified. Clearly, 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. 18. In N.T.P.C. Ltd. v. Mohd. Samad Kha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
