Ministry Of Railways vs Hukma Raj Badala

Court
Delhi High Court
Case type
Writ Petition Civil
Decided on
20-02-2026

$~30 and 31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1803/2019, CM APPL. 8417/2019 and CM APPL.
9698/2024

Date of Decision: 20.02.2026


IN THE MATTER OF:

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS .....Petitioner

(Through: Mr Subhash Tanwar (SPC), Mr Sandeep Mishra, Mr
Harshit Deshwal, Mr Mohit Kumar Tomar, Mr Mayank Sehrawat,
Advocates)

versus

HUKMA RAJ BADALA .....Respondent

(Through: Ms. Asmita Singh, Advocate (Amicus) along with Ms.
Ankita makan, Mr. Shashank jain, Mr. Geet kumar Advocates.)

AND

+ W.P.(C) 1804/2019, CM APPL. 8418/2019 and CM APPL.
9697/2024

MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS .....Petitioner

(Through: Mr Subhash Tanwar (SPC), Mr Sandeep Mishra, Mr
Harshit Deshwal, Mr Mohit Kumar Tomar, Mr Mayank Sehrawat,
Advocates.)

Versus


HUKMA RAJ BDALA .....Respondent
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:02.03.2026
16:10:26
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

(Through: Ms. Asmita Singh, Advocate (Amicus) along with Ms.
Ankita makan, Mr. Shashank jain, Mr. Geet kumar Advocates.)


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
J U D G E M E N T

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)


1. In both these petitions, the prayer is for setting aside a common order
dated 12.04.2018, passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) in
second appeals filed by the respondent under Section 19 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), and order dated 29.10.2018 passed in
applications for review of the order dated 12.04.2018.

2. Vide order dated 12.04.2018, the CIC had directed the petitioner to
pay ‘compensation’ of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the
respondent for inaction towards timely furnishing of information. Vide order
dated 29.10.2018, the CIC has rejected the petitioner’s application for
review of its earlier order, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees
Five Thousand only) for non-payment of ‘compensation’ as earlier directed.
3. Since no one was appearing on behalf of the respondent, therefore,
Ms. Asmita Singh, learned counsel, was appointed as Amicus Curiae. She
has ably assisted the Court by presenting a detailed note explaining the
applicable legal position.
1
4. This Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Samad Khan, has
held that unless the loss is ascertained after the enquiry, no compensation

1
2010:DHC:1362
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:02.03.2026
16:10:26
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

can be granted under Section 19 of the RTI Act. Paragraph no.17 of the said
decision is extracted as under:-
“17. The ambit of the power under Section 19 (8)(b) has to be
determined by the scope of the powers of the CIC generally under
Section 19, and as an Appellate Authority in terms of Section 19 (1) to
(8). The compensation payable under Section 19 (8)(b) is “for any loss or
other detriment suffered”, on account of the denial of the information
under the RTI Act and not just about any loss or detriment suffered by the
applicant. In the context of the present case if the CIC had found that the
Respondent was unfairly denied by the NTPC, the information sought for
by him, the CIC was next to determine the precise loss suffered by the
Respondent on account of such denial of information. Thereafter it could
pass appropriate orders to compensate the Respondent for the loss or
detriment suffered. In the present case, there is no finding by the CIC that
the NTPC had in its records a survey report which it unfairly denied to
the Respondent. This factual determination was essential for the CIC to
proceed to determine the information. Thereafter under Section 19(8)(b)
RTI Act it was in the discretion of the CIC to award compensation. Even
while exercising that power a finding would have to be rendered by the
CIC on the extent of loss, even approximately, suffered by the person to
whom such information ought to have been furnished. This is because the
compensation that has to be awarded under Section 19 (8)(b) is for the
loss or the detriment suffered “on account of the denial of such
information” and not just about any loss or detriment suffered by such
person. There is no such determination by the CIC in the present case.”

5. The same position has been reiterated by this Court in the cases of
2
PIO Tihar Jain vs. Om Prakash Gandhi, Directorate of Higher
3
Education & Anr. v. Central Information Commission & Anr. and Zoya
4
Rahman V. The Bihar School Examination Board.
6. If the impugned orders are examined in the context of the aforesaid
legal position, it would appear that no such enquiry has been conducted to
determine the precise loss caused to the respondent. Considering that the
directions to pay compensation to the respondent are not based on any

2
2018:DHC::1203
3
2020:DHC:1150
4
Order dated 09.08.2023 in CWJC No. 5500 of 2023
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:02.03.2026
16:10:26
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

calculation of the specific loss suffered by him, the same deserves to be set
aside.
7. So far as the imposition of penalty vide order dated 29.10.2018 is
concerned, the power to impose penalties is contained in Section 20 of the
RTI Act, which is extracted as under:-
“20. Penalties.—(/) Where the Central Information Commission or the
State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of
deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central
Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the
case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an
application for information or has not furnished information within the
time specified under sub-section (/) of section 7 or malafidely denied the
request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or
misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject
of the request or, obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information,
it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till
application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total
amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:

Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable
opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and
diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State
Public Information Officer, as the case may be.

(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information
Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or
appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or
the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any
reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for
information or has not furnished information within the time specified
under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for
information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading
information or destroyed information which was the subject of the
request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it
shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case
may be, under the service rules applicable to him.”

8. While the CIC is, definitely, empowered under the aforesaid provision
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:02.03.2026
16:10:26
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV

to impose penalties, it is seen that the penalty imposed on the respondent
vide order dated 29.10.2018, was for non-payment of ‘compensation’ which
itself could not have been imposed. In view thereof, even the said direction
deserves to be set aside.
9. Accordingly, the impugned orders stand set aside and the petitions are
disposed of.
10. If any amount has been deposited by the petitioner before this Court
pursuant to the directions passed by the CIC, let the same be refunded upon
due verification.
11. Liberty is however granted to the respondent for seeking imposition
of penalty under Section 20 before the CIC, if so advised, for furnishing of
the delayed information to the respondent. The said liberty is necessary in
view of the findings rendered by the CIC in its order regarding delayed
furnishing of the information.
12. The Court places on record the appreciation of Ms. Asmita Singh,
learned counsel for her invaluable assistance.


(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 20, 2026
Nc/amg


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA
Signing Date:02.03.2026
16:10:26
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
KUMAR KAURAV