Central Information Commission
R L Ladwal vs High Court Of Delhi on 13 March, 2020
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/HCDEL/A/2018/161823-BJ
Mr. R. L. Ladwal
....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. CPIO
Delhi High Court
Sher Shah Road
New Delhi - 110503
2. CPIO
Department of Power
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
8th Floor, B Wing
Delhi Secretariat, I. P. Estate
New Delhi - 110002
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.03.2020
Date of Decision : 13.03.2020
Date of RTI application 08.05.2018
CPIO's response 31.05.2018
Date of the First Appeal 06.07.2018
First Appellate Authority's response 31.07.2018
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 10.10.2018
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on whether M/s Central East Delhi Electricity Discom I Ltd was a 100% Government Company as per the DVB Transfer Circular Order dated 27.12.2001 and communications dated 15.11.2001, 26.09.2017 and 18.04.2018.
The CPIO and Dy. Secretary, DERC vide its letter dated 31.05.2018 provided a point wise response inter alia informing that the queries raised in points 01 to 03 did not fall within the purview of the definition of information. As regards point no 04, it was stated that the license was granted to B.Y.P.L which was a successor to Central East Delhi Electricity Distribution Company Limited and that the details were available on the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA, High Court of Delhi. The FAA, High Court of Delhi, Page 1 of 5 vide its order dated 31.07.2018 while stating that the information sought by the Appellant was in respect of the BSES which was more closely connected with the functions of the PIO, D/o Power, Govt of NCT of Delhi stated that there was no fault on the part of the APIO in transferring the application to the concerned PIO as per the provisions of Section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. R. L. Ladwal;
Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SO & PIO, Mr. C. K. Roy, Jt. Secretary & PIO, Mr. Ashish Kumar, Dy. Secretary, Ms. Anu Bagai, Advocate, Standing Counsel, Delhi High Court, Mr. Sudhir Sachdeva, AO (Judicial), Mr. Suresh Kumar, Reader and Mr. Dibyaranjan Gouda, Judicial Asstt.;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of the RTI application and stated that the desired information was not provided to him, till date. He primarily aired his grievance regarding the alleged irregularity in the process of conversion of Central East Delhi Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (a Government Company) to BSES Yamuna Power Ltd (a Public Limited Company) and stated that the same was not carried out in accordance with the provisions of the law. In support of his contention, the Appellant referred to an earlier decision of the Commission in CIC/RK/A/2016/000534-SA dated 14.09.2016. In its reply, the Respondent (High Court of Delhi) stated that since the subject matter of the information sought pertained to the jurisdiction of the D/o Power, Govt of NCT of Delhi, the application was transferred to them and that they had no other role in the matter. The Respondent D/o Power submitted that the Appellant was misusing the RTI Act, 2005 by repeatedly filing RTI applications on frivolous and clarificatory issues. Explaining the background of the matter, the Respondent stated that consequent to the unbundling and privatization of Delhi Vidyut Board, the license was initially issued to the 'Central East Delhi Electricity Distribution Company Ltd' which was one of the three companies for distribution of electricity in Delhi. However, the said company changed its name to BSES Yamuna Power Ltd through Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana vide letter dated 09.08.2002. Furthermore, they had already informed the Appellant that Govt of NCT of Delhi had ordered for CAG Audit of DISCOMs which was quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide judgement dated 31.10.2015. Thereafter GNCTD had filed an Appeal against the said order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the said matter is still sub-
judice. A reference was made by the representative of D/o Power to the matter of auditing of accounts of DISCOMs by CAG pending before the Apex Court in SLP (C) 1371-1376/2016 tagged with SLP No 35614/2015 which was admitted before the Apex Court and pending as on date. The Respondent also referred to the notification No F 11 (118)/2001-Power/2889 dated 22.11.2001 issued by the Govt of NCT of Delhi (D/o Power) notifying the policy directions to enable restructure the Delhi Vidyut Board and privatization of the distribution companies. Furthermore, DISCOMs were private companies and hold 51% of equity shares which were offered to them through a competitive bidding process. It was also submitted that the Appellant was an employee of erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board who was absorbed with BSES Yamuna Power Ltd after unbundling and privatization of Delhi Vidyut Board in 2002 and had superannuated from BSES Yamuna Power Limited. He was also informed multiple times that the available information was given by their office and taking any action against the DISCOM was not in the purview of the RTI Act, 2005. Still it was unclear why the Appellant was making the same submission again and again which resulted in unwanted wastage of their office hours and resources. On being queried by the Commission regarding the matter pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Appellant replied in the affirmative but submitted that his primary query/ concern regarding alleged illegal conversion of a Government Company to a Page 2 of 5 Private Company remained unaddressed. To a further query regarding a similar matter being decided by the Commission where he had made allegations regarding irregularities in the activities of the company BSES and filed the Second Appeal against the CPIO, Supreme Court of India, the Appellant feigned ignorance and stated that he was not aware of the decision of the Commission in the said matter. A copy of the decision of the Commission in the aforementioned matter was provided to the Appellant during the hearing, the receipt of which was acknowledged by him.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Appellant dated 09.03.2020 wherein it was inter alia prayed to initiate steps to curb the corruption in the Public Authority; imposition of penalty of Rs.50,000/- against the concerned CPIOs for misleading the Commission; inquiry on the matter of validity of BSES without license/ authority and filing of FIR under the SC/ ST Act; reason why he was harassed for the last 20 years and not granted promotion as per the provisions of the DVB Act and SC/ ST Act, 1996, authority responsible for evasion of taxes since the last 18 years due to conversion of PAN of CEDEDCL to BYPL on 09.08.2002.
The Commission was also in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent (D/o Power, Govt of NCT of Delhi) dated 11.03.2020 which has been taken on record.
The Commission referred to the definition of information u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:
6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:
"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e- mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating Page 3 of 5 to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."
7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."
The Commission also observed that the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/ right to information and to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013 had held that RTI Act was not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the Page 4 of 5 confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
A similar view delineating the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction was also taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sher Singh Rawat vs. Chief Information Commissioner and Ors., W.P. (C) 5220/2017 and CM No. 22184/2017 dated 29.08.2017 and in the matter of Shobha Vijender vs. Chief Information Commissioner W.P. (C) No. 8289/2016 and CM 34297/2016 dated 29.11.2017. [[ DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and in the light of the decisions cited above, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
(Bimal Julka) (िबमल जु का)
(Chief Information Commissioner) (मु य सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
(K.L. Das) (के .एल.दास)
(Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26186535/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 13.03.2020
Copy to:-
1. The Secretary, D/o Power, Government of NCT of Delhi, 'B' Wing, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi 110002
2. The Registrar, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi - 110503 Page 5 of 5