M.C.D vs Chief Information Commission - RTI Compliance Directions

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Issues | Petitioner's Arguments |
| Respondent's Arguments | Analysis of the law |
| Precedent Analysis | Court's Reasoning |
| Conclusion | |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark View how precedents are cited in this document View precedents: Unmark Mark View only precedents: Unmark Mark Select precedent ... Filter precedents by opinion of the court
| Relied by Party | Accepted by Court |

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 9, Cited by 0 ] ### 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)

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

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](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8590508/), the Court had directed for certain
             compliances. He submits that there are no such directions contained in [Kalyan Sanstha Social Welfare Organization](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/8590508/) (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](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1083556/) of the
             Right to Information Act, 2005 (the [RTI Act](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/671631/)). The CIC had, however,
             assumed jurisdiction under [Section 19(8)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1758911/) of the RTI Act, and had issued
             certain directions to be complied with. According to him, while deciding an
             appeal under [Section 19](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/593162/), though the commission is fully empowered to pass
             directions under [Section 18](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1083556/), the vice versa is not true. Therefore, in a
   
                 WP (C) No. 4582/2003 and CM No. 587/2006
   

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).

1.    The Court, however, finds that there are two distinct mechanisms
             under [Section 18](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1083556/) and [19](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/593162/) of the RTI Act. The Commission is fully
             empowered to issue directions under [Section 19(8)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1758911/) while it is entertaining an
             appeal under [Section 19](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/593162/). 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](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1083556/) of the RTI Act. Under [section 18(1)(e)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/15195/), the CIC, inter alia, can only
             inquire into the complaint of the applicant, who believes that he or she has
   
                 2011 (15) SCC 1
   

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.

1.    In CIC v. State of Manipur (supra), the Supreme Court, in para 42,
             has held that [Sections 18](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1083556/) and [19](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/593162/) 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.
   

2.    This Court followed suit in [Dr. Deepak Juneja v. Central
             Information Commission & Ors.3](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/97155210/), whereby it held that for the grant of
             reliefs laid down under [Section 19](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/593162/), the complainant would necessarily have
             to file an appeal under [Section 19](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/593162/). The said reliefs could not have been
             sought in a complaint filed under [Section 18](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1083556/). In High Court of [Delhi v. R.K.
             Jain4](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1954585/), this Court held that while examining a complaint under [Section 18](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1083556/),
             the CIC has no jurisdiction to direct disclosure of any information.
   

3.    It is, thus, seen that the scope of an inquiry under [section 18(1)(e)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/15195/) 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.
   

4.    In the instant case, there does not exist any prior order by the
             commission and therefore, the power under [section 19(8)](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1758911/) 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.
   

5.   For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order deservers to be set
             aside. The same is accordingly set aside.
   

W.P.(C) 11489/2016

                  2018 SCC OnLine Del 10799

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.

1. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

W.P.(C) 1786/2025 & CM APPL. 16759/2025

1. 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

Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:02.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
17:02:39 Page 5 of 5 KUMAR KAURAV