welcome to Timely Response | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	HIGH COURT CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
1	W.P.(C) 11489/2016, CM No. 2470/2018 (224.33 KB)	29 Apr, 2019	DR. DEEPAK JUNEJA VS CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION Brief facts: 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 and the lessee continues to be in possession of the land. The RTI application was transferred by CPIO, Ministry of Urban Development to Director (RTI), DDA on January 30, 2015. On March 03, 2015, the RTI application was transferred by Senior Research Officer, DDA, RTI to Deputy Director (Coordination) Lands. On March 10, 2015, RTI application transferred by Deputy Director (Coordination) Lands to 10 CPIO's including Group Housing and Commercial Lands. It is the case of the petitioner that on April 10, 2015, he received reply from CPIO (Group Housing), DDA allegedly containing list of 934 Group Housing Societies as enclosures but the enclosures were missing. Decision: 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. 18. 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." 19. 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. 20. The writ petition is disposed of.
2	CWP No. 24954 of 2014 (146.18 KB)	05 Aug, 2016	O.P. Kajal Vs. State Information Commission, Haryana and another Review of the earlier order by the State Information Commission whether tenable? The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that in the absence of the review, the earlier orders could not have been modified by the impugned order. It is settled principle that review is a creature of the statute. Even otherwise as noticed from the facts above that the petitioner was aggrieved against then on implementation of the earlier order, but the Commission choose to withdraw the relief already granted. In such circumstances, the impugned order cannot be justified and same is quashed. The respondent Commission shall re-decide the issue, why the order had not been complied with for which the show cause notice had been issued.
3	W.P. (C) No. 31947 of 2013 (P) (53.35 KB)	31 Jan, 2014	John Numpeli (Junior) vs The Public Information Officer & others This writ petition the petitioner prays for an order directing the first respondent to certify the copies of documents furnished to him pursuant to Ext.P1 application as copies issued under the Act. The petitioner has also prayed for an order directing the first respondent to furnish to him with copy of the No Objection Certificate issued by the Fire and Rescue Services Department. The Hon’ble High Court he allowed the writ petition and directed the first respondent to issue a fresh set of documents sought for in Ext.P1 application other than the No Objection Certificate issued by the W.P(C)No.31947/2013 Fire and Rescue Services Department on the petitioner paying the requisite fees and to certify the copies as copies issued under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
4	W.P. 3381/2011 (194.25 KB)	30 Oct, 2013	Ajay Kumar Gulati Vs. Pushpender Nath Pandey & Anr. Section 7(1)-Supply Information – the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the respondent –bank has filed an affidavit of its General Manager stating therein that the information sought by the petitioner could not be provided to him as the same was not traceable and is still not traceable in the bank, despite best efforts to trace the said information. In view of the categorical affidavit filed by none other than the General Manager of the Bank, it is quite clear that the information to the extent it is not supplied to the petitioner is not available with the bank in any form. Since the information is not available with the bank, there can be no question of granting any direction to the bank to provide the same to the petitioner.
5	W.P.(S) 1629/2013 (34.33 KB)	05 Sep, 2013	Sunita Kumari Hembrom & Anr. Vs. Jharkhand Public Service Commission & Ors. Section 7 – Supply of Information- there is no rule imposing duty upon J.P.S.C. to publish the result of unsuccessful candidates, who applied for and have not qualified in the selection exercise undertaken by the respondents. Information can be obtained by the petitioners so far as it relates to their own case under the relevant provision of Right to Information Act, 2005, which they have prima facie case is made out that they have been discriminated against in the matter of selection, recommendation and appointment under Scheduled Tribe Category, category for the said post in the selection exercise, only then interference under writ jurisdiction is warranted. At this stage, petitioners have failed to make out a case for any interference by this Court.
6	W.P. (C) 4048/2012 (121.77 KB)	22 Jul, 2013	Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board Vs. Pushpendra Singh Section 7(1) Supply of Information – the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the Apex Court has clearly upheld the right of the examinee to have inspection as well the copy of his answer book, even if the rules and regulations of the examining body prohibit such inspection and/or copy. If the answer sheet is still available, the respondent is certainly entitled to its copy. If the answer sheet has already been destroyed, there can be no direction for supplying its copy to the respondent. The petitioner shall file an affidavit of the concerned Deputy Secretary to this effect while disclosing the date of destruction and supported by the requisite documents evidencing such destruction.
7	C.W.P. 8794/2011-J (218.49 KB)	06 Mar, 2013	Ved Prakash Vs. State Information Commission, Himachal Pradesh & Ors Section 7(1) – Supply of Information the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that respondent no.3 and 4 have not supplied the information within the period prescribed under section 7 of the Act and have knowingly given incorrect and misleading information. The respondent no.4, in addition to this, has also destroyed the information and has also obstructed the supply of information to the petitioner. It was the duty of respondent No.4 to supply the information as per sub-section (5) of section 5 of the Act, but he has failed to do so. the respondent no.1 besides imposing penalty upon respondent No.3 and 4, ought to have awarded compensation to the petitioner. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each is imposed upon respondent no.3 for supplying knowingly incorrect information and respondent no.4 for knowingly giving incorrect and misleading information, destruction of information and obstructing the information. The petitioner is also held entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the loss and detriment suffered by him to be paid proportionately by respondents No.3 and 4.

1

W.P.(C) 11489/2016, CM No. 2470/2018
(224.33 KB) pdf icon

29 Apr, 2019

DR. DEEPAK JUNEJA VS CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Brief facts:
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 and the lessee continues to be in possession of the land. The RTI application was transferred by CPIO, Ministry of Urban Development to Director (RTI), DDA on January 30, 2015. On March 03, 2015, the RTI application was transferred by Senior Research Officer, DDA, RTI to Deputy Director (Coordination) Lands. On March 10, 2015, RTI application transferred by Deputy Director (Coordination) Lands to 10 CPIO's including Group Housing and Commercial Lands. It is the case of the petitioner that on April 10, 2015, he received reply from CPIO (Group Housing), DDA allegedly containing list of 934 Group Housing Societies as enclosures but the enclosures were missing.

Decision:
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.

18. 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."

19. 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.

20. The writ petition is disposed of.

2

CWP No. 24954 of 2014
(146.18 KB) pdf icon

05 Aug, 2016

O.P. Kajal Vs. State Information Commission, Haryana and another

Review of the earlier order by the State Information Commission whether tenable?

The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that in the absence of the review, the earlier orders could not have been modified by the impugned order. It is settled principle that review is a creature of the statute. Even otherwise as noticed from the facts above that the petitioner was aggrieved against then on implementation of the earlier order, but the Commission choose to withdraw the relief already granted. In such circumstances, the impugned order cannot be justified and same is quashed. The respondent Commission shall re-decide the issue, why the order had not been complied with for which the show cause notice had been issued.

3

W.P. (C) No. 31947 of 2013 (P)
(53.35 KB) pdf icon

31 Jan, 2014

John Numpeli (Junior) vs The Public Information Officer & others

This writ petition the petitioner prays for an order directing the first respondent to certify the copies of documents furnished to him pursuant to Ext.P1 application as copies issued under the Act. The petitioner has also prayed for an order directing the first respondent to furnish to him with copy of the No Objection Certificate issued by the Fire and Rescue Services Department.
The Hon’ble High Court he allowed the writ petition and directed the first respondent to issue a fresh set of documents sought for in Ext.P1 application other than the No Objection Certificate issued by the W.P(C)No.31947/2013 Fire and Rescue Services Department on the petitioner paying the requisite fees and to certify the copies as copies issued under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

4

W.P. 3381/2011
(194.25 KB) pdf icon

30 Oct, 2013

Ajay Kumar Gulati Vs. Pushpender Nath Pandey & Anr.

Section 7(1)-Supply Information – the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the respondent –bank has filed an affidavit of its General Manager stating therein that the information sought by the petitioner could not be provided to him as the same was not traceable and is still not traceable in the bank, despite best efforts to trace the said information. In view of the categorical affidavit filed by none other than the General Manager of the Bank, it is quite clear that the information to the extent it is not supplied to the petitioner is not available with the bank in any form. Since the information is not available with the bank, there can be no question of granting any direction to the bank to provide the same to the petitioner.

5

W.P.(S) 1629/2013
(34.33 KB) pdf icon

05 Sep, 2013

Sunita Kumari Hembrom & Anr. Vs. Jharkhand Public Service Commission & Ors.

Section 7 – Supply of Information- there is no rule imposing duty upon J.P.S.C. to publish the result of unsuccessful candidates, who applied for and have not qualified in the selection exercise undertaken by the respondents. Information can be obtained by the petitioners so far as it relates to their own case under the relevant provision of Right to Information Act, 2005, which they have prima facie case is made out that they have been discriminated against in the matter of selection, recommendation and appointment under Scheduled Tribe Category, category for the said post in the selection exercise, only then interference under writ jurisdiction is warranted. At this stage, petitioners have failed to make out a case for any interference by this Court.

6

W.P. (C) 4048/2012
(121.77 KB) pdf icon

22 Jul, 2013

Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board Vs. Pushpendra Singh

Section 7(1) Supply of Information – the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that the Apex Court has clearly upheld the right of the examinee to have inspection as well the copy of his answer book, even if the rules and regulations of the examining body prohibit such inspection and/or copy. If the answer sheet is still available, the respondent is certainly entitled to its copy. If the answer sheet has already been destroyed, there can be no direction for supplying its copy to the respondent. The petitioner shall file an affidavit of the concerned Deputy Secretary to this effect while disclosing the date of destruction and supported by the requisite documents evidencing such destruction.

7

C.W.P. 8794/2011-J
(218.49 KB) pdf icon

06 Mar, 2013

Ved Prakash Vs. State Information Commission, Himachal Pradesh & Ors

Section 7(1) – Supply of Information the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that respondent no.3 and 4 have not supplied the information within the period prescribed under section 7 of the Act and have knowingly given incorrect and misleading information. The respondent no.4, in addition to this, has also destroyed the information and has also obstructed the supply of information to the petitioner. It was the duty of respondent No.4 to supply the information as per sub-section (5) of section 5 of the Act, but he has failed to do so. the respondent no.1 besides imposing penalty upon respondent No.3 and 4, ought to have awarded compensation to the petitioner. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each is imposed upon respondent no.3 for supplying knowingly incorrect information and respondent no.4 for knowingly giving incorrect and misleading information, destruction of information and obstructing the information. The petitioner is also held entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the loss and detriment suffered by him to be paid proportionately by respondents No.3 and 4.