[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Housing & Urban Development ... vs Vishwas Bhamburkar on 7 April, 2026
$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 6860/2018 & CM APPL. 26067/2018
Date of Decision: 07.04.2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rohit Sharma,Mr.Nikhil
Purohit,Mr.Jatin Lalwani and Mr. Jay
Rawat, Advs.
versus
VISHWAS BHAMBURKAR .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashish K Dixit, CGSC with Mr.
Umar Hashmi, Ms. Iqra Sheikh, Mr.
Gautam Yadav and Ms. Vani Sharma,
Advs. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
JUDGEMENT
PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:
"(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction quashing
(i) The Final Judgment dated 11.06.2018 in Complaint no.
CIC/HUDCO/C/2018/103140; And
(ii) The final judgment dated 11.06.2018 in Complaint no.
CIC/HUDCO/C/2018/101535; And
(iii) The final judgment dated 11.06.2018 in Complaint no.
CIC/HUDCO/C/2018/101536, passed by the Central Information
Commission, New Delhi; AND
(b) Restrain the respondent from filing any more RTI applications with the
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:16.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:35:24 Page 1 of 3 KUMAR KAURAV
petitioner."
2. The petition impugns three separate orders dated 11.06.2018 passed
by the Central Information Commission ("CIC") in applications filed under
Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ("RTI Act"). By way of
the impugned orders, the CIC has directed the petitioner to provide certain
information and has also sought to impose penalty on the petitioner.
3. The petitioner contends that under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the CIC
does not have the power to direct the furnishing of documents. The
petitioner relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in Chief Information
Commissioner v. State of Manipur in support of his contention.1
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that
while deciding a complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the CIC
can only enquire into the aspect of compliance of already issued directions.
The same observation was made by this Court in the case of MCD v. Chief
Information Commissioner & Ors2, wherein the Court dealt with similar
facts and circumstances. The relevant extract from the said judgement is
reproduced below:
"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 been given incomplete, misleading or
false information under the RTI Act.
...
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,
(2011) 15 SCC 1
W.P.(C) 122/2012 decided on 25.03.2026
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:16.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:35:24 Page 2 of 3 KUMAR KAURAV
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."
5. This Court has previously made observations about the distinctive
ambit and scope of Sections 18 & 19 of the RTI Act in Dr. Deepak Juneja
v. Central Information Commission & Ors.3 and High Court of Delhi v.
R.K. Jain.4 In Deepak Juneja, the Court arrived at the following conclusion:
"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; andprovide two different remedies."
6. For the abovesaid reasons, this Court had, vide order dated
06.07.2018, stayed the operation of the impugned orders herein.
7. None appears for the private respondent. It appears that the private
respondent has lost his interest in prosecuting the complaint.
8. Be that as it may, even on merits, the nature of the directions issued
by way of the impugned orders would not sustain in law as they go beyond
the scope of powers envisaged under Section 18 of the RTI Act.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, all the impugned orders are set aside. The
petition, therefore, stands allowed. If the private respondent has any further
information to be sought, he shall be at liberty to file the appropriate
application before the concerned Public Information Officer.
10. The petition stands disposed of along with pending applications.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
APRIL 7, 2026/SH
W.P.(C) 11489/2016 decided on 29.04.2019
2018 SCC OnLine Del 10799
Signed By:PRIYA Signed
Signing Date:16.04.2026 By:PURUSHAINDRA
12:35:24 Page 3 of 3 KUMAR KAURAV
