2019 (4) TMI 2096 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of complaints - two complaints made by the petitioner under Section 18 read with Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2015 (RTI Act) were not entertained on the ground that both are composite petitions - It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order passed by the CIC is illegal, inasmuch as the petitions were neither composite nor is the filing of the composite petitions barred under the RTI Act - petitioner has not filed an appeal as contemplated under Section 19(3) of the Act for seeking action under Section 19(8)(b) and under Section 19(8)(a)(v) - grant of compensation (19 (8)(b))/providing training (19 (8)(a)(v)) to the officials of the DDA (to be appealed under Section 19 of the RTI Act only) - prayer for penalties under Section 20(1) and 20 (2) of the Act (to be complained under Section 18) - time limitation. Whether the CIC was justified in rejecting the complaints filed by the petitioner under Section 18(1) read with Section 20 of the RTI Act? - HELD THAT - The petitioner apart from seeking action under Section 20(1) and (2) of the RTI Act has also prayed for grant of compensation in his favour under Section 19(8)(b) and providing training to officials under Section 19(8)(a)(v). On perusal of Section 20 of the RTI Act, it is clear that the penalty under Section 20 can be sought in a complaint as well as in an appeal. But when a prayer for action under Section 19(8)(b) or 19(8)(a)(v) is made it can be sought only in an appeal, as the said provisions are part of section 19 which relates to appeal. The Supreme Court has in its judgment in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Ors. v. State of Manipur and Ors. 2013 (3) TMI 378 - SUPREME COURT , culled out the difference between Sections 18 and 19 of the Act. It was concerned with facts where appellant No. 2 filed an application dated February 09, 2007 under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act for obtaining information from the State Information Officer relating to magisterial enquiries initiated by the Government of Manipur from 1980-2006. As the application under Section 6 received no response, appellant No. 2 filed a complaint under Section 18 of the Act before the State Chief Information Commissioner, who by an order dated May 30, 2007 directed respondent No. 2 to furnish the information within 15 days. The said direction was challenged by the State by filing a writ petition. The second complaint dated May 19, 2007 was filed by the appellant No. 2 for obtaining similar information for the period between 1980 -March 2007. As no response was received this time also, appellant No. 2 again filed a complaint under Section 18 and the same was disposed of by an order dated August 14, 2007 directing disclosure of the information sought for within 15 days. That order was also challenged by way of a writ petition by the respondent State of Manipur. Both the writ petitions were heard together and were dismissed by a common order inter alia upholding the order of the Commissioner. So, in the case in hand, it must be held the prayer of the petitioner relatable to grant of compensation (19 (8)(b))/providing training (19 (8)(a)(v)) to the officials of the DDA, could have been prayed for only in an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act. Insofar as the prayer for penalties under Section 20(1) and 20 (2) of the Act are concerned, the same could have been claimed in a complaint under Section 18 provided the case is made out on the grounds stipulated. Thus, the petitioner could not have sought a prayer for compensation/for providing training stipulated in Section 19 by making a complaint under Section 18 read with Section 20 of the Act. To that extent surely the CIC was justified in holding that the petitions are composite. The CIC having dismissed the composite petitions being without merit, suffice it to state the petitioner is required to file an appeal under Section 19 with a prayer for grant of compensation under Section 19 (8)(b) and for a direction to provide training to the officials of the DDA under Section 19(8)(a)(v). So, it is for the petitioner to file a complaint under Section 18 and appeal under Section 19 incorporating the prayers as referred to above separately and distinctly. If such a complaint and appeal are filed the same shall be considered by the CIC in accordance with law. It is clarified here, wherever the limitation is prescribed, the same shall be condoned, provided the complaint/appeal are filed within four weeks from the receipt of copy of this order - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the counter affidavit.
2. Legality of the Central Information Commission (CIC) dismissing composite petitions under the Right to Information Act, 2015 (RTI Act).
3. Interpretation of Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the RTI Act.
4. The appropriate forum for seeking penalties, disciplinary action, compensation, and training under the RTI Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Counter Affidavit:
The Delhi Development Authority (DDA) filed an application seeking condonation of a 120-day delay in filing the counter affidavit. The court condoned the delay for the reasons stated in the application and took the counter affidavit on record, disposing of the application.

2. Legality of CIC Dismissing Composite Petitions:
The petitioner challenged the CIC's order dated March 08, 2016, which dismissed two complaints as composite petitions. The petitioner argued that the RTI Act does not expressly bar composite petitions and that dismissing them on this ground is illegal, erroneous, and arbitrary. The petitioner contended that the RTI Act encompasses the fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, making the right to file a complaint/appeal against the denial of information inviolable. The petitioner also cited previous instances where similar composite petitions were entertained by the CIC without objection.

3. Interpretation of Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the RTI Act:
The court analyzed the provisions of Sections 18, 19, and 20 of the RTI Act. It noted that:
- Section 20: Penalties can be sought in a complaint as well as in an appeal.
- Section 19(8)(b): Compensation can only be sought in an appeal.
- Section 19(8)(a)(v): Training for officials can only be sought in an appeal.
The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Chief Information Commissioner and Ors. v. State of Manipur and Ors., which distinguished between Sections 18 and 19, stating they serve different purposes, lay down different procedures, and provide different remedies.

4. Appropriate Forum for Seeking Penalties, Disciplinary Action, Compensation, and Training:
The court held that the petitioner could not seek compensation and training in a complaint under Section 18 read with Section 20. These remedies must be sought through an appeal under Section 19. The court found the CIC justified in dismissing the composite petitions but allowed the petitioner to file separate complaints and appeals for the respective reliefs. The court cited the case of Kripa Shanker v. LD Central Information Commission and Ors. to support this position, emphasizing that the CIC has no power to direct disclosure of information under Section 18 but can impose penalties under Section 20 in proceedings under Section 19(3).

Conclusion:
The court disposed of the writ petition, clarifying that the petitioner should file separate complaints under Section 18 and appeals under Section 19 for the respective reliefs. The court also allowed for the condonation of any prescribed limitation if the complaint/appeal is filed within four weeks from the receipt of the order.