Court allows separate complaints under RTI Act, dismisses composite petitions.

The court condoned the delay in filing the counter affidavit by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and disposed of the application. It held that seeking penalties, disciplinary action, compensation, and training under the Right to Information Act must be done through separate complaints and appeals under Sections 18 and 19. The court found the Central Information Commission (CIC) justified in dismissing composite petitions but allowed the petitioner to file separate complaints and appeals for the respective reliefs. The petitioner was directed to file within four weeks from the receipt of the order.

---

---

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.

---