TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 2096
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nuary 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. 3. On May 02, 2015 a letter was sent by the petitioner to CPIO (Group Housing) for supplying the list of Group Housing Societies. On June 03, 2015 first appeal was filed before First Appellate Authority (Group Housing) asking for an order to the CPIO to provide the list of group housing societies. It is the petitioner's case that on June 20, 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded 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 information. On March 08, 2016 the order passed by the CIC holding that the complaint is composite petition. 7. 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. The reasoning of the CIC that the RTI Act does not expressly provide for filing composite petitions is illegal, untenable, erroneous and arbitrary, inasmuch as the RTI Act encompasses in itself fundamental right enshrined under Article 19 (1)(a) of the Constitution and thus the right to file a complaint/appeal against the denial of information is inviolable part of that right. The right is only restricted to a reasonable extent by an existing law in the interest of sovereignty, integrity of India, the security of State etc. 8. It was his submission that the petitioner had previously filed similar composite petitions before the CIC and the same were not objected to nor dismis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., 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 unsustainable and liable to be set aside. He prays that the matter be remanded back for decision on merit on the complaints filed by the petitioner. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Delhi Development Authority by drawing my attention to counter affidavit filed by him submitted that the CIC has rightly dismissed the complaints on the ground that the same are composite petitions inasmuch as reliefs sought were for compensation and training in terms of Sections 19 (8)(b) and 19(8)(a)(v) of the RTI Act and penalties under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the said Act which are impermissible. Despite liberty being granted to institute separate petitions, the same have not been instituted by the petitioner. There is no occasion, for the petitioner to file the present writ petition impugning the order of the CIC. 11. According to him, as per law, each RTI petition has to be treated as separate and distinct petition and there cannot be any clubbing of matters based on different RTI applications. Response to each ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rupees Fifty Thousand for the delay in supplying the information and thus violating his fundamental rights 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). 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(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ifferent 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 ....