Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 2096 - DELHI HIGH COURTMaintainability 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.
|