R.Vijayan Vs Commercial Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court has dismissed a review application filed by R. Vijayan against an earlier Division Bench order, denying his plea for compensation under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. Vijayan had sought compensation for alleged delay and furnishing of false information by the Commercial Tax Officer, who was the Public Information Officer in his case.
The genesis of the dispute traces back to Vijayan’s request for information under the RTI Act. When the Public Information Officer (PIO) did not provide the sought details, he appealed to the First Appellate Authority, also without success. Subsequently, a second appeal before the State Information Commissioner (SIC) resulted in a reversal of the lower authority’s decision. The SIC directed the PIO to furnish the information within 15 days, which was then supplied to Vijayan.
Despite receiving the information, Vijayan was “not satisfied.” He filed W.P. No. 18300 of 2013, seeking a certiorarified mandamus to quash the enquiry by the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission and direct the first respondent to provide the information with “exemplary cost.” The Writ Court, in its order dated October 26, 2022, acknowledged that the information had been furnished, albeit with a delay. However, it explicitly stated that the writ petition’s prayer was for information, not compensation. The court noted that compensation could only be awarded if the SIC found that information was withheld without reasonable cause, maliciously denied, or if incorrect/misleading information was knowingly provided, leading to a maximum penalty of Rs. 25,000. Since the impugned order did not indicate any mala fide action or unreasonable withholding of documents, the Writ Court concluded that compensation could not be ordered.
