9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 2096X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 29-4-2019 - V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. For the Appellant : Pankaj Singh, Adv. and Party-in-Person For the Respondent : Sanjeev Sagar, SC and Nazia Parveen, Adv. JUDGMENT V. Kameswar Rao, J. CM No. 2470/2018 This is an application filed by the Delhi Development Authority seeking condonation of 120 days delay in filing the counter affidavit. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 120 days in filing the counter affidavit is condoned and the same is taken on record. Application is disposed of. W.P.(C) 11489/2016 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated March 08, 2016 passed by the Central Information Commission (in short 'CIC') whereby two complaints made by the petitioner under Section 18 read with Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2015 (in short 'RTI Act') were not entertained on the ground that both are composite petitions. 2. The facts as noted from the petition are that on January 20, 2015, the petitioner filed an RTI application with the CPIO, Ministry of Urban Development seeking information regarding public land in Delhi, where leases have expired a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer, DDA to Deputy Director (Coordination) Lands who transferred the application to 10 CPIO's including Group Housing and Commercial lands. On June 03, 2015 the first appeal filed before the First Appellate Authority (Commercial Lands) but it was not decided by the First Appellate Authority. On August 17, 2015 the petitioner files complaint before the CIC against CPIO (CL) and First Appellate Authority (CL) seeking imposition of penalty; recommendation of disciplinary action; compensation among others. Reply was received from First Appellate Authority (CL) alleging that the reply has been provided vide letter dated March 25, 2015 and the first appeal hearing was conducted on May 27, 2015 and order passed on May 29, 2015 alleging that the petitioner did not attend the appeal hearing. 6. On September 22, 2015 petitioner responded to First Appellate Authority (CL) stating that the facts mentioned by him in the letter dated September 03, 2015 pertained to CPIO (Industrial) and that CPIO (CL) has not provided any reply till date and the First Appellate Authority himself did not disposed of the first appeal. On October 21, 2015 reply received from CPIO (CL) denying the inform ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that relief under Sections 19(8)(b) and 19(8)(a)(v) can be provided in a appeal under Section 19(3) only while penal action under Section 20(1) and 20(2) can be provided only via a complaint under Section 18(1) or by way of an appeal is arbitrary. He submitted that even otherwise, the CIC has grossly erred in interpreting the provisions of the RTI Act in terming the complaints as devoid of merit in para 6 of the impugned order. The complaint against CPIO/First Appellate Authority (Group Housing) was filed for providing incomplete information which is a valid ground for making a complaint under sub Section (e) of section 18(1). The complaint against CPIO/First Appellate Authority (CL) was filed for not giving reply which is a valid ground for making a complaint under sub Sections (b) and (c) of Section 18(1). Thus, the decision of the learned CIC to term the complaints as devoid of merit is grossly erroneous and illegal as the petitions were dismissed on technical grounds and not on merit. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the provisions of Section 18, 19 and 20 of the RTI Act to contend that the impugned order is unsust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal were transferred by the said FAA in clear violation of the RTI Act. (4) Provide compensation to the complainant by DDA u/s. 19(8)(b) for the acts of its official to the tune of Rupees Fifty Thousand for the delay in supplying the information, supplying incomplete information and thus violating his fundamental right and also the mental agony and anguish caused to him. (5) Order DDA to provide training to all its officials on the RTI Act u/s. 19(8)(a)(v). 2nd Complaint (Pages 23-24 of the paper book) (1) Imposition of Penalty on CPIO (CL) u/s. 20(1) of the RTI Act for not responding to the RTI application in violation of section 7(1) of the said Act. (2) Recommend Disciplinary action against CPIO (CL) u/s. 20(2) of the RTI Act. (3) Imposition of penalty and recommendation of disciplinary action against FAA/Director (CL) for not complying with the RTI Act by not responding and adjudicating the first appeal. (4) Provide compensation to the complainant by DDA u/s. 19 (8) (b) for the acts of its official to the tune of Rupees Fifty Thousand for the delay in supplying the information and thus violating his fundamental rights and also the mental agony and anguish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 dated November 16, 2007 by learned Single Judge of the High Court by inter alia upholding the order of the Commissioner. The writ appeal was disposed of by the order dated July 29, 2010 wherein the Division Bench has held that under Section 18 of the Act the Commissioner has no power to direct the respondent to furnish the information and further held that such a power has already been conferred under Section 19(8) of the Act on the basis of an exercise under Section 19 only. The Division Bench further held that the direction to furnish information is without jurisdiction and directed the Commissioner to dispose of the complaints in accordance with law. The Supreme Court in an appeal by the Chief Information Commissioner, by referring to Sections 18 and 19 of the Act has in paras 37, 41, 42 and 44 held as under: 37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a substitute for the other. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 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. This position has also been held by the Coordinate Bench of this court in the case of Kripa Shanker v. LD Central Information Commission and Ors. W.P.(C) 8315/2017, Para 12 whereof reads as under: 12. An information seeker can also file a complaint under Section 18 of the Act, in respect of matters set out in clauses (a) to (f) of section 18 (1) of the Act, which includes a case where access to any information has been refused. In terms of Section 18(2) of the Act, if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
