{"id":219594,"date":"2019-09-16T11:45:25","date_gmt":"2019-09-16T06:15:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=219594"},"modified":"2019-09-20T11:29:01","modified_gmt":"2019-09-20T05:59:01","slug":"jhar-hc-person-holding-the-post-of-first-appellate-authority-cannot-be-treated-as-a-public-authority-within-the-meaning-of-s-2-h-of-rti-act-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/16\/jhar-hc-person-holding-the-post-of-first-appellate-authority-cannot-be-treated-as-a-public-authority-within-the-meaning-of-s-2-h-of-rti-act-2005\/","title":{"rendered":"Jhar HC | Person holding the post of First Appellate Authority cannot be treated as a public authority within the meaning of S. 2 (h) of RTI Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jharkhand High Court<\/strong>: Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as he was aggrieved by the order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner on 24-12-2014.<\/p>\n

The Chief Information Commissioner, in exercise of power conferred under Section 19(8)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act, 2005’), held the petitioner liable to make payment for an amount of Rs 50,000 by way of compensation to be paid in favour of the respondent for the harassment meted out to him by the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner too had issued a communication to the petitioner to deposit the demand draft for the said amount in compliance of the order passed by Chief Information Commissioner.<\/p>\n

The petitioner challenged these orders on the following grounds:<\/p>\n