Central Information Commission
Nishant Kumar vs Directorate Of Prosecution Delhi on 9 November, 2021
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग , मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi -110067
दितीय अपील संख्या /Second Appeal No.: CIC/DPREL/A/2020/695207
Nishant Kumar .....अपीलकताा /Appellant
VERSUS
Public Information Officer Under RTI,
Additional Public Prosecutor, Directorate of
Prosecution-Delhi (Government of NCT of
Delhi), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi-110054.
...प्रदतवािीगण/Respondent
Relevant facts emerging from Second Appeal:
RTI application filed on : 08.09.2020
CPIO replied on : 09.10.2020
First appeal filed on : 26.10.2020
First Appellate Authority order : 10.11.2020
Second Appeal received at CIC : Nil
Date of Hearing : 09.11.2021
Date of Decision : 09.11.2021
सूचना आयुक्त: श्री हीरालाल सामररया
Information Commissioner: Shri Heeralal Samariya
Page 1 of 9
Information sought:
The Appellant sought following information as under:Page 2 of 9
Etc. PIO vide letter dated 09.10.2020 provided following reply:Page 3 of 9
Dissatisfied with the reply of the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.10.2020. The FAA vide order dated 10.11.2020 held that :-Page 4 of 9
Written submission of PIO dated 26.10.2021 is taken on record:
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The PIO has not provided correct information to the Appellant.Page 5 of 9
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present: -
Petitioner: Present in person.
Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Bhatia, Additional Public Prosecutor & PIO, Directorate of Prosecution. ] Petitioner reiterated the factual matrix of the case and stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the PIO.
Commission interjected the Petitioner and remarked that instant matter is a composite petition and same is not maintainable (emphasis was laid down on the decision of this bench in case no. CIC/DPREL/A/2019/113594 dated 07.09.2021) Petitioner requested the Commission to treat his instant matter as a second appeal and submitted an application in respect of the same.
PIO (Directorate of Prosecution) explained the factual matrix of the case and submitted that relevant and available information has already been provided to the appellant. He further submitted that a detailed written submission dated 26.10.2021 has already been submitted for the perusal of the Commission. He furthermore contended that averred request of the petitioner shall not be considered in the light of the previous decisions of the Commission and that petitioner must be directed to file a fresh second appeal in the matter.
Decision:
Commission observes that petitioner herein has filed the instant petition in composite nature whereby, he has invoked Section 18(1), 19(3), 19(8)(b), 20(1), 20(2) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further in the prayer clause, including inter alia, he has sought compensation under Section 19(8) (b) of the RTI Act 2005 along with disclosure of information and also the penal action against the respondents under Section 20(1) & 20(2) of the RTI Act 2005.
Adverting to the supra, Commission observes that the composite petitions of such nature are not legally tenable. The said observation is in line with the ratio laid down by this Commission in the matter of Dr. Deepal Juneja v. DDA in case no. CIC/KY/C/2015/000152 wherein it was held that :
" 3. In view of the nature of the prayer clause (supra), the Commissioner feels that Dr. Deepak Juneja, filed petitions in composite nature whereby, the petitioner has sought compensation under Section 19(8) (b) of the RTI Act 2005 and also the penal action against the respondents under Section 20(1) & 20(2) of the RTI Act 2005. Thus, these petitions may be legally construed as composite petitions in the light of provisions of RTI Act 2005.Page 6 of 9
4. By virtue of above, the Commission feels that the composite petitions of such nature are not legally tenable, simply because, if the penal action is allowed on such composite petition, the incorporation of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act 2005 would be rendered as redundant and meaningless.
5. Further, in other words, it may be stated here that the relief provided under section 19(8)(b) of the RTI Act 2005, is legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, if he wishes to file the petition u/s 19(3) of the RTI Act 2005 i.e. second appeal only before this Commission. Similarly, the reliefs provided under Sub Clause (1) & Sub Clause (2) of Section 20 of the RTI Act 2005, are legally permissible to be provided to the petitioner, in case, he wishes to file the petition u/s 18 of the RTI Act 2005 i.e. a complaint before this Commission and, however, not in otherwise.
6. In view of the position above and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner feels that in the absence of expressed & enabling provisions under the RTI Act 2005 to file the composite petitions, the instant composite petitions are devoid of merit and deserve to be dismissed."
[Emphasis Supplied] Further, ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Dr. Deepak Juneja vs Central Information Commission, W.P.(C) 11489/2016, CM No. 2470/2018, dated 29 April, 2019 may be noted, wherein similar observation has been further exemplified. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as under:
"13. From the perusal of the prayers made in the complaints by the petitioner it is clear that the petitioner had sought imposition of penalty under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act; recommendation of disciplinary action against the CPIO under Section 20 (2) of the RTI Act; recommendation of disciplinary action against First Appellate Authority / Director; for providing compensation by the DDA under Section 19(8)(b) and for providing training under Section 19(8)(a)(v) of the RTI Act.
14. In other words, it is noted 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., MANU/SC/1484/2011 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 Page 7 of 9 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 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.
41. It is well-known that the legislature does not waste words or say anything in vain or for no purpose. Thus a construction which leads to redundancy of a portion of the statute cannot be accepted in the absence of compelling reasons. In the instant case there is no compelling reason to accept the construction put forward by the respondents.
42. Apart from that the procedure under Section 19 of the Act, when compared to Section 18, has several safeguards for protecting the interest of the person who has been refused the information he has sought. Section 19(5), in this connection, may be referred to. Section 19(5) puts the onus to justify the denial of request on the information officer. Therefore, it is for the officer to justify the denial. There is no such safeguard in Section 18. Apart from that the procedure under Section 19 is a time bound one but no limit is prescribed under Section 18. So out of the two procedures, between Section 18 and Section 19, the one under Section 19 is more beneficial to a person who has been denied access to information.
44. This Court, therefore, directs the appellants to file appeals under Section 19 of the Act in respect of two requests by them for obtaining information vide applications dated 9.2.2007 and 19.5.2007 within a period of four weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed following the statutory procedure by the appellants, the same should be considered on merits by the appellate authority without insisting on the period of limitation."
15. Having noted the position of law as laid down by the Supreme Court, it is clear that Sections 18 and 19 serve two different purposes; lays down two different procedures; and provide two different remedies.
16. 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.
17. 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.
Page 8 of 918. The aforesaid being the legal position, 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. 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 CIC is satisfied that there is a reasonable ground to enquire into the matter, the CIC may initiate an inquiry with respect thereof. There is no provision in Section 18 of the Act, which enables the CIC to direct disclosure of information. However, the CIC has the power to commence proceedings for imposition of penalty in case of proceedings under Section 19(3) of the Act as is apparent from the plain language of Section 20(1) of the Act."
[Emphasis Supplied] In view of the position above and in the circumstances of the case, this bench of Commission observes that the instant composite petition is devoid of merit.
However, in the interest of justice, Commission provides the liberty to the Petitioner to file a fresh Second Appeal under Section 19 in the instant matter for fresh consideration.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालालसामररया) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अदिप्रमादणतसत्यादपतप्रदत) Ram Parkash Grover (रामप्रकाशग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 9 of 9