May I project some more views of mine on the subject of compensation, to enable to draw more clarifications from the fertile brains of this Forum ? We should not mix up Section 19(8)(b)RTIAct- " require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered " with 18(3)(a) - " summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to provide the documents or things " The cases Mr.Mpai has quotted appears falling under Section 19(8)(b). There is no ambiguity on this order except its implementation. There is no Head of Account nor any budgetary allotment nor any other financial provision enabling the PA to implement this orders. I am curious to know any incidence where the PA has implemented this orders and how it is done. I had already submitted my views on
CIC's powers on enforcing attendance. Section 18(3)(a) amplified that
CIC's powers is to enforce attendence ...
to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things. CIC cannot compel or enforce attendenhce of the Appellant, as he cannot compel him to give oral or written evidence and produce documents or things
against his wishes in civil cases . The
CIC has to decide the case on the basis of documnts or things he has produced. If it is not adequate, it is Appellant's fate. His case may be dismissed or decided expartee. When the
CIC cannot compel the attendence of Appellant he is not entitled for any compensation or "batha". I think that under no circumstances an ppellant can claim "Batha" orTA/DA nor the
CIC or any court of law has powers to grant it to Appellant unless in cerain extraordinary circumstances he is made to defend from escaping from defamation or from allegation of criminal offences or hebecome defendent etc etc (This aspect is very complicated and hencenot going further).. In the case of Respondent or any witnessess, the Court or
CIC who is delegated the powers under CPC can enforce attendence in the interest of State. Respondent being government servants travelling on duty are entitled forTA/DA which they are claiming. In other civil cases before other courts also government servants attending the court when summoned claim TA/DA. In case other witness whose attendence the court find essential in the interest of justice such witnessess are made to attend in the interest of state they have to be paid and are being paid TA/DA by the court. I think that the courts have budgtary provision also. This is my vintage mindset and request the learned Advocates or other knowledgeable members of this Forum to bring out mistakes if any in my views expressed .