Delhi High Court
M.C.D vs Chief Information Commission And Ors on 25 March, 2026
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$~7 & 8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 25.03.2026
IN THE MATTERS OF:
+ W.P.(C) 122/2012 & CM APPL. 41127/2018, CM APPL.
8208/2023, CM APPL. 49186/2025
M.C.D. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manu Chaturvedi Standing
Counsel for MCD
versus
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ORS
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manoj Kr Dwivedi, Mr.Bhupesh
Kumar Pathak & Mr Ashutosh Kumar
Sharma, Advocates for respondent no.
2.
8
+ W.P.(C) 1786/2025 & CM APPL. 16759/2025
ANIL DUTT SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manoj Kumar Dwivedi and Mr.
Puneet Mishra, Advocates.
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Manu Chaturvedi Standing
Counsel for MCD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:02.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:02:39 Page 1 of 5 KUMAR KAURAV
W.P.(C) 122/2012 & CM APPL. 41127/2018, CM APPL. 8208/2023, CM
APPL. 49186/2025
1. During the pendency of the instant writ petition, various directions
came to be issued by the Court from time to time. The Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (MCD) has also placed on record the purported
compliance report and takes the position that most of the directions have
already been complied with.
2. Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner, however, points out that some of the directions have been
issued presumably on the ground that in the case of Kalyan Sanstha Social
Welfare Organization v. UOI and Ors.1, the Court had directed for certain
compliances. He submits that there are no such directions contained in
Kalyan Sanstha Social Welfare Organization (supra), as has been
understood by the Central Information Commission (CIC). He also submits
that taking assistance from the CIC’s exercise, the MCD made all possible
endeavours to undertake a transparent mechanism for the functioning of the
Corporation.
3. Mr Chaturvedi, however, submits that in the instant case, the
respondent- RTI applicant had approached the CIC under Section 18 of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 (the RTI Act). The CIC had, however,
assumed jurisdiction under Section 19(8) of the RTI Act, and had issued
certain directions to be complied with. According to him, while deciding an
appeal under Section 19, though the commission is fully empowered to pass
directions under Section 18, the vice versa is not true. Therefore, in a
1
WP (C) No. 4582/2003 and CM No. 587/2006
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:02.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:02:39 Page 2 of 5 KUMAR KAURAV
complaint under Section 18, the powers exercisable under Section 19(8)
ought not to have been invoked. He placed reliance on a decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner v. State of
Manipur & Anr.2;
“32. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the
impugned judgment of the High Court whereby it has been held that the
Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said
Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the
information.”
4. The submissions made by Mr. Manu Chaturvedi are opposed by Mr.
Manoj Kr Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
He submits that the MCD is under an obligation to comply with the
directions passed by the CIC. According to him, it would be of no
significance as to under which provision the directions have been issued, so
long as the CIC is found to have the jurisdiction to issue the directions. He
further contends that though the application was under section 18 of the RTI
Act, the CIC is equally empowered to issue the directions under Section
19(8).
5. The Court, however, finds that there are two distinct mechanisms
under Section 18 and 19 of the RTI Act. The Commission is fully
empowered to issue directions under Section 19(8) while it is entertaining an
appeal under Section 19. In the instant case, however, the directions have
not been issued while deciding an appeal or while adjudicating appeal
proceedings. Instead, the directions seem to have been issued under section
18 of the RTI Act. Under section 18(1)(e), the CIC, inter alia, can only
inquire into the complaint of the applicant, who believes that he or she has
2
2011 (15) SCC 1
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:02.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:02:39 Page 3 of 5 KUMAR KAURAV
been given incomplete, misleading or false information under the RTI Act.
6. In CIC v. State of Manipur (supra), the Supreme Court, in para 42,
has held 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 substituted for the other.
7. This Court followed suit in Dr. Deepak Juneja v. Central
Information Commission & Ors.3, whereby it held that for the grant of
reliefs laid down under Section 19, the complainant would necessarily have
to file an appeal under Section 19. The said reliefs could not have been
sought in a complaint filed under Section 18. In High Court of Delhi v. R.K.
Jain4, this Court held that while examining a complaint under Section 18,
the CIC has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure of any information.
8. It is, thus, seen that the scope of an inquiry under section 18(1)(e) is
limited to the compliance of already existing directions. The grievance of
incomplete, misleading or false information can certainly be looked into but
the same must relate to the existing directions requiring the public authority
to furnish certain information.
9. In the instant case, there does not exist any prior order by the
commission and therefore, the power under section 19(8) should not have
been exercised. It is a well-known principle that where a statute provides for
something to be done in a particular manner, it can be done in that manner
alone and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order deservers to be set
aside. The same is accordingly set aside.
3 W.P.(C) 11489/2016 4 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10799 Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRIYA Signed Signing Date:02.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA 17:02:39 Page 4 of 5 KUMAR KAURAV
11. The original RTI applicant, however, shall be at liberty to file a fresh
application requiring information under the RTI Act, if the same is
mandated under the provisions of the RTI Act. If he files appropriate
application, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
12. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. Pending applications
also stand disposed of.
W.P.(C) 1786/2025 & CM APPL. 16759/2025
13. In view of the aforesaid order passed in W.P.(C) 122/2012, the
adjudication of this writ petition is not required. Accordingly, petition stands
disposed of for the same reasons recorded in W.P.(C) 122/2012.
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J
MARCH 25, 2026/ar/ss
Signature Not Verified Signature Not Verified
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:02.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:02:39 Page 5 of 5 KUMAR KAURAV
[ad_1]
Source link
