Central Information Commission
R L Ladwal vs Department Of Power on 13 December, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File Nos.: CIC/DERCM/C/2022/159832, CIC/DERCM/A/2023/138996
CIC/DERCM/A/2023/138995, CIC/DERCM/A/2023/120099
CIC/DOPWR/A/2022/159902, CIC/DOPWR/A/2023/138992
CIC/DOPWR/A/2023/138993, CIC/DOPWR/A/2023/138989
CIC/DOPWR/A/2023/121049, CIC/GNCTD/A/2022/155383
CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/133563, CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/133548
CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/129413, CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/129412
CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/129411, CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/129410
CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/129409, CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/127491
CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/120100, CIC/DOPWR/A/2021/138107
CIC/DOPWR/A/2022/116091.
R. L. LADWAL ....िशकायतकता /Complainant
.....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
1. PIO,
DELHI ELECTRITY REGULATORY
COMMISSION, NODAL CPIO, RTI
CELL, VINIYAMAK BHAWAN,
SHIVALIK, NEAR MALVIYA NAGAR,
NEW DELHI - 110017.
2. PIO,
Department of Power,
GNCTD, 8th Level, B Wing,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi - 110002. .... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Date of Hearing : 26.11.2024
Date of Decision : 12.12.2024
Page 1 of 68
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
The above-mentioned Complaint and Second Appeals have been clubbed
together for disposal through common order as these are based on similar
issues raised by the same applicant.
CIC/DERCM/C/2022/159832
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 08.04.2022
CPIO replied on : 28.04.2022
First appeal filed on : 17.06.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 01.07.2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25.11.2022
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 08.04.2022 seeking the following information:
"Q1) P.I.O-POWER/ मो हत शमा वारा / इशू लाईसस. वै लड (BSES) dt 11/3/2004/ID 245 TO (DERC) फोर (25) वष (BSES) मझ ु े दया आवे।
जो मझ ु े(20) वष सेनह!ं दया गया है मझ ु ेलाईसे$स वै लड दया जावे/ एलोग&वद (जौइ$ट वै$चर ल!गल) डोकूम+$ट मुझे दयेजावे।"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 28.04.2022 stating as under:
"इस संबंध म, यह देखा गया है /क आवे दक ने&व भ$न आरट!आई आवेदन1 केमा2यम सेलगातार एक ह! 34न प छ ू रहा है तथा स8बं9धत &वषय पर अधोह;ता<र! नेकई बार उपल>ध जानकार! 3दान क? है ।
इस संदभ म आवेदक का 2यान माननीय सच ू ना आयA ु त Bी ह!रालाल सामCरया वारा CIC/DERCM/A/2020/139256, Bी आर.एल. लडवाल बनाम डीईआरसी Dनणय म दनांक 10.01.2022, के दए गए Dनणय क? ओर भी आक&षत /Gया जाता है :-
3Dतवेदन म तदन$तर यह बताया गया है /क 3ाथH प हले दIल! &व यत ु बोड के कमचार! थे। बाड केDनजीकरण केGम म उ$ह बीएसईएस यमुना पावर ल मटेड वारा शा मल कर लया गया था.Page 2 of 68
जहां से वे सेवाDनवत ृ हो गए। अपने इनके गलत आचरण के कारण इनके सेवा अव9ध म इनके &वK ध बड़ी अनुशासनाMमक कायवाह! संि;थत क? गयी थी। इससे Oय9थत होकर बार-बार शकायत और आईट!आई आवेद न दाQखल करते रहते हR, िजससे 3ा9धकरण के संसाधन1 का &वपथन होता है । 3Dतवेद न म 3;तत ु संद भ म आयोग के 3;तत ु पीठ वारा 3ाथH क? Dन;ताCरत &वतीय अपील1 का हवाला भी दया गया है तथा बताया /क 3ाथH आरट!आई का द K ु पयोग करते हR। इस आधार पर 3ाथH क? 3;तत ु अपील को खाCरज करने का आTह आयोग से /कया है । 3Dतवेद न क? एक 3Dत 3ाथH को भी पUृ ठां/कत क? गयी है ।
उपरोAत के म दे नजर, इस आरट!आई आवेद न को खाCरज /कया जाता है ।"
Being dissatisfied, the complainant filed a First Appeal dated 17.06.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 01.07.2022, held as under:
"अपीलकता को यह सू9चत /कया जाता है /क उसको डीईआरसी म उपल>धा बी.एस.ई.एस केलाइसस सेस8बं9धत, फाइल को DनCर<ण करनेका मौका दया गया था और मांगेगए द;तावेज1 को पीआईओ, डीईआरसी के वारा पV दनांक 16.08.2017 और 13.05.2022 वारा 3दान /कया है ।
दIल! के राUW!य राजधानी <ेV म &वतरण लाइससधार! क8पनीयो को डीईआरसी वारा दए गए, लाइसस डीईआरसी /क वेबसाइट पर उपल>ध है , िजसका लंक है :
http://www.derc.gov.in/license-issued-to-utilities अपीलकता को यह भी सू9चत /कया जाता है /क य द वह कX!य लोक सूचना अ9धकर! या राYय लोक सच ू ना अ9धकर! के /कसी &वDन4चय सेOय9थत है , उस अव9ध क? समािZत सेया ऐसे/कसी &वDन4चय क? 3िZत सेतीस दन केभीतर ह! 3थम अपील!य 3ा9धकार! को अपील दायर कर सकता है तथा अपीलकता नेDनधाCरत समय सीमा, के अंदर अपील ना कर पानेका कोई उ9चत कारण भी नह!ं बताया है ।"
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
A written submission dated 20.11.2024 filed by Mr. Chandra Kant Roy, JS/CPIO is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
Page 3 of 68"...(a) Sh. R.L. Ladwal's RTI application dated 08.04.2022 was received from the Department of Power, GNCTD, letter dated 18.04.2022 and this was received at DERC on 20.4.2022.
(b) Sh. R.L. Ladwal stated that licence issued by Mohit Sharma, PIO, Power dated 11.03.2204, ID-245 to DERC in respect of BSES for 25 years be provided to him.
(c) The PIO, DERC vide his reply dated 28.04.2022 informed that he appellant that through various RTIs the appellant has been raising the same query. Furthermore, the crux of the decision of Sh. Heeralal Samariya, Hon'ble Information Commissioners' in the matter of Sh. R.L Ladwal Vs PIO, CIC/DERCM/A/2020/139256 was also communicated. The crux of which is that the appellant, a formed DVB employee has been absorbed in BSES Yamuna Power Ltd and due to his bad behaviour disciplinary action was initiated against him while he was in service. Due to his unhappiness in the matter, the appellant time and again has been filing complaints and RTI. That the appellant was previously also informed during his appeal to the CIC, that he is misusing the provisions of RTI Act 2005. As such his appeal is dismissed.
(d) The appellant chose to file an Appeal to the First Appellate Authority, DERC dated 17.06.2022 which was disposed off by the FAA, DERC vide his order dated 01.07.2022.
2. Conclusion: It would be suffice to say that the appellant is misusing the provisions of RTI Act 2005 and is repeatedly asking questions which pertaining to issue of licence to BSES Yamuna Power Ltd, copy of which has already been provided to him earlier and that the same is already available on the Commission's website and being in Public domain is exempted from the provisions of the RTI Act 2005."
CIC/DERCM/A/2023/138996 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.05.2023 CPIO replied on : 02.06.2022 First appeal filed on : 01.05.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 25.05.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.09.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 13.05.2023 seeking the following information:Page 4 of 68
"Q-1 (BSES & YAMUNA) A JOINT Venture of (BSES) with Govt of NCT: Delhi dt 29/8/2005 का Cरकाड \बद ु (स;पैनसन order/ ल!गल डोकूम+$ट के साथ म दे वे। कापी संल]न है Q-2 Bी चGवतH- (SR. MANAGER) क? जोईDनंग डयट ू ! द! जावे। order 29/5/2005/ यह BSES क8पनी Employee है अथवा नह! है Cरकाड दे वे।
Q-3 BSES (OR) BYPL- दोनो क8पनी एक है अपना नह!ं है बतावे।
\ब$द ु Cरकाड दे वे-
Q-4 (BSES) \बल ले रह! है - उस अथोरोटर! का नाम बताया जावे। ऐसा /कस लये है .
Q-5 (DVB म BSES PVT) क8पनी-/कस अथोCरट! से काय कर रह! है । बताया जावे-&वद ल!गल डोकूम+$ट के साथ म दे वे।"
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 02.06.2022 stating as under:
"\बंद ु 1, 2 :- सूचना डीईआरसी से संबं9धत नह!ं है और यह डीईआरसी के काय^ के तहत नह!ं आती है , जैसा /क &व यत ु अ9धDनयम, 2003 क? धारा 86 के तहत उिIलQखत है (अनल ु ]नक । के Kप म संल]न 3ासं9गक अक)। और आपको यह स9ू चत /कया जाता है /क वतमान म माननीय उ_च $यायालय ने डीईआरसी बनाम सीआईसी और अ$य के मामले म 23.04.20091 (WP (C) 6735/2007) के Dनद+ श के अनुसार सच ू ना के अ9धकार अ9धDनयम, 2005 के तहत डीईआरसी, `ड;कॉ8स से सच ू ना नह!ं मांग सकता है ।
(अनलु ]नक || म संल]न माननीय उ_च $यायालय के आदे श क? 3Dत दनांक 23.04.2009) \बंद ु 3, 4, 5 :- दIल! के राUW!य राजधानी <ेV म &वतरण लाइससधार! क8पनीयो को DERC वारा दए गए, लाइसस DERC /क website पर उपल>ध है , िजसका लंक हR:-
http://www.derc.gov.in/license-issued-to-utilities 3ाथH को यह स9ू चत /कया जाता है /क BSES के लाइसस से स8बं9धत, DERC म उपल>ध फाइल को DनCर<ण करने का मौका दया गया था और मांगे गए द;तावेज1 को 3ाथH क? पV दनांक 16.08.2017 और 13.05.2022 वारा 3दान /कया है ।Page 5 of 68
इस संदभ म 3ाथH का 2यान माननीय सच ू ना आयA ु त Bी ह!रालाल सामCरया वारा CIC/DERCM/A/2020/ 429322, Bी आर.एल.लडवाल बनाम डीईआरसी Dनणय म दनांक 22.11.2021 के दए गए Dनणय क? ओर भीआक&षत /कया जाता है :-
सुनवाई केदौरान 3ाकbय सस ु ंगत तcयः सुनवाई के दौरान 3ाथH आयोग म उपि;थत हुए। 3Dतवाद! प< सेBी आशीष कुमार, उपस9चय. डीईआरसी और Bी संजय कुमार, अनुभाग अ9धकार!, &व यत ु &वभाग आयोग म उपि;थत हुए।
3Dतवाद! प<, &व युत &वभाग नेआयोग को बताया /क 3ाथH के 3;तुत आवेदन के मा2यम सेवांDछत सभी पV1 क? 3Dतयां 3ाथH से62 Kपयेका अDतCरAत शI ु क 3ाZत करतेहुए 3दान कर दया गया है । 3ाथH ने;वीकार /कया उ$ह द;तावेज 3ाZत हुए हR। 3ाथH क? एकमाV दल!ल यह! थी /क बीएसईएस कंपनी न तो पंजीकृत है और न ह! उसकेपास लाईसस है . /फर यह /कस 3कार &व यत ु &वतरण का काय देख रह! है ।
Dनणय सं9चका म उपल>ध तcय1 तथा सुनवाई के दौरान उभय प<1 वारा 3;तत ु क? गयी दल!ल के आलोक म यह ;पUट है /क 3ाथH के 3;तत ु आवेदन के मा2यम सेवांDछत सच ू ना / द;तावेज 3ाथH सेअDतCरAत शI ु क 3ाZत करतेहुए 3दान कर द! गयी है ।
3;तत ु संदभ म उIलेखनीय तcय यह है /क सच ू ना का अ9धकार अ9धDनयम क? धारा 2 (च) के3ावधान1 केअनस ु ार एक जन सच ू ना अ9धकार! संबं9धत 3ा9धकरण केCरकाड म एक सामTी के Kप म उपल>ध सूचना ह! 3दान कर सकता है । तदन$तर, सच ू ना का अ9धकार अ9धDनयम केअंतगत के$X!य सच ू ना आयोग &वतीय अपील!य अ9धकारण है , िजसका काय संबं9धत 3ा9धकरण सेसच ू ना 3दान करवाना माV है । /कसी अ$य शकायत का समाधान आंयोग केकाय<ेV सेपरेहR।
उपरोAतानस ु ार 3;तत ु अपील Dन;ताCरत क? जातीहै ।
इसके अलावा, आवेदक का 2यान मानeीय सीआईसी के Dनणय CIC/AT/A/2007/00112 दनांक 04.12.2007 क? ओर आक&षत /कया जाता है , िजसम यह कहा गया है /क सावजDनक डोमेन पर उपल>ध जानकार! को आरट!आई अ9धDनयम, 2005 के 3ावधान1 के तहत दे ने क? आव4यकता नह!ं है ।"Page 6 of 68
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 01.05.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 25.05.2023, held as under:
"मामल1 के तcय1 से ये fात हुआ है /क Bी आर.एल. लडवाल ने पV दनांक 01.05.2023 के वास दायर अपील दायर क? है , जो इस कायालय म दनांक 01.05.2023 को3ाZत हुई है । इस अपील के मा2यम से अपीलकता ने कहा है क? :-
मेर! अपील दनांक 17/06/22 ID 4622 दनांक 02/06/22 है इसकोआपके वारा आज तक `ड;पोज़ नह!ं है कृपया Cरकॉड दे वे `ड;पोज़ कCरये "
अपीलकता को यह स9ू चत /कया जाता है /क 3थम अपील!य 3ा9धकार! और स9चव, डीईआरसी पV No.F.9(36)/DERC/RTI-4622/2022-23/Appeal No.525/700. दनांक 01.07.2022 के वारा अपील का Dनर;तारण /कया जा चक ू ा है । (िजसक? 3Dत ल&प अनल ु ]नक-1 के Kप म यहाँ संल]न है ) --"
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission dated 20.11.2024 filed by Mr. Chandra Kant Roy, JS/CPIO is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"(a) The appellant vide his RTI dated 13.05.2022 had raised 05 queries.
(b) The PIO, DERC vide his reply dated 02.06.2022 had informed the Appellant that the queries at Point Nos 1 and 2 do not pertain to DERC and subjects do not fall within the purview of DERC's function as mandated under Section 86 of the Electricity Act 2003. Furthermore, the appellant was also informed that
(c) The PIO, DERC clubbed the answers under Point Nos. 3, 4 and 5 and informed the appellant regarding the links where the licence could be found on DERC's website. He was also reminded that he had inspected the file pertaining to issue of licence by DERC to BSES Yamuna Power Limited and the documents requisitioned from the said file by the appellant had already been handed over to him firstly on 16.08.2017 and thereafter on 13.05.2022.
(d) Further, the attention of the appellant was also sought to the decisions of the Hon'ble Information Commissioner Sh. Heeralal Samariya in the matter of Sh. R.L. Ladwal Vs PIO, DERC, CIC/DERCM/A/2020/129322 dated 22.11.2021, the crux of which was reproduced in Hindi and which states that the PIO can only provide information as available to him.Page 7 of 68
(e) The appellant proceeded to file an appeal to the First Appellant Authority DERC, which was disposed, vide Order dated N.F.9(36)/DERC/RTI-
4622-23/Appeal No.525/700 dated 01.07.2022, thereafter, the appellant filed another appeal vide his application dated 01.05.2023 alleging that his initial appeal had not been disposed. The First Appellate Authority, DERC vide his order dated 29.05.2023 informed the appellant that his previous appeal had already been disposed off vide his previous order dated 01.07.2022 and a copy of which was forwarded with his Order. The First Appellate Authority, DERC also did not admit his appeal dated 01.05.2023.
2. Conclusion: Sh. R.L. Ladwal's repeated queries under RTI Act 2005 centring around only one issue is nothing short of misuse of RTI Act 2005, wherein the applicant by paying Rs.10/ asks multiple times regarding an issue whose all information are already available to him and with which he is familiar. The queries in the instant appeal are also in the first instant not clear. Thereafter they are more in the nature of allegations and assumptions and for which he seeks explanations from the PIO, DERC. Furthermore, the queries do not even pertain to DERC."
CIC/DERCM/A/2023/138995 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 05.12.2022 CPIO replied on : 15.12.2022 First appeal filed on : 23.12.2022 First Appellate Authority's order : 20.01.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : ---.09.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 05.12.2022 seeking the following information:
"Q1 (YPL) YAMUNA POWER LTD) तथा (BSES LTD) लाथा (BYPL) पर (BID-ठे का) ठे का नह!ं है । तथा Yवाई$ट वै$चर नह!ं है -अगर है -तो स ट/फकेट स टफाइड़ टू कापी मझ ु े द! जावे।
Q2 File. 11/118/पावर/180/Dt 29/5/2002, मे (BSES) 26% 3Dतशत शेयर होिIडंग (BSES) क8पनी है । इस नो ट/फकेसन क? सटiफाईड कापी दे वे।Page 8 of 68
Q3 नोट (DERC) File-09/36/ID-2927/Dt. 18-4-2018 म (BSES-PVT) क8पनी (पहले) (DVB) गवमै$ट क8पनी क? उjरा9धकार! है - इसका परू ा Cरकाड दया जावे।"
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 15.12.2022 stating as under:
"\बंद ु 1, 3, :- दIल! के राUW!य राजधानी <ेV म &वतरण लाइससधार! क8पनीयो को DERC वारा दए गए, लाइसस DERC /क website पर उपल>ध है , िजसका लंक है :-
http://www.derc.gov.in/license-issued-to-utilities 3ाथH को यह स9ू चत /कया जाता है /क BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. के लाइसस से स8बं9धत DERC म उपल>ध फाइल को DनCर<ण करने का मौका दया गया था और मांगे गए द;तावेज1 को 3ाथH को पV दनांक 16.08.2017 और 13.05.2022 वारा 3दान /कया है ।
इसके अलावा, आवेदक का 2यान माननीय सीआईसी के Dनणय CIC/AT/A/2007/00112 दनांक 04.12.2007 क? ओर आक&षत /कया जाता है , िजसम यह कहा गया है /क सावजDनक डोमेन पर उपल>ध जानकार! को आरट!आई अ9धDनयम, 2005 के 3ावधान1 के तहत दे ने क? आव4यकता नह!ं है ।
\बंद ु 2, 4 :- वांDछत जानकार! डीईआरसी से संबं9धत नह!ं है ।"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 23.12.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 20.01.2023, held as under:
"मामल1 के तcय1 से ये fात हुआ है /क Bी आर.एल. लडवाल ने अपील दायर क? है । इस अपील के मा2यम से अपीलकता ने कुछ 34न पूछे हR। िजसके अवलोकन से यह fात होता है /क दए गए \बंद,ु शकायत, अधरू े और अ;पUट बयान है तथा आरट!आई अ9धDनयम, 2005 के धारा 2 (च) के 3ावधान1 के तहत द! गई जानकार! के दायरे म नह!ं आते हR। आरट!आई अ9धDनयम, 2005 क? धारा 2 (च) Dन मि$लQखत है :
(च) "सच ू ना" से /कसी इलैAWाDनक Kप म धाCरत अ भलेख, द;तावेज, fापन, ई-मेल, मत, सलाह, 3ेस &वfिZत, पCरपV, आदे श, लागबक ु , सं&वदा, Cरपोट, कागजपV, नमून,े माडल, आंकड़1 संबंधी सामTी और /कसी 3ाइवेट Dनकाय से संबं9धत ऐसी सच ू ना Page 9 of 68 स हत, िजस तक तMसमय 3वj ृ /कसी अ$य &व9ध के अधीन /कसी लोक 3ा9धकार! क? पहुंच हो सकती है , /कसी Kप म कोई सामTी अ भ3ेत है ;
सच ू ना अ9धकार अ9धDनयम, 2005 के अंतगत, डीईआरसी केवल उपल>ध जानकार! ह! 3दान कर सकता है । एवं PIO, DERC वारा, उप ल>ध जानकार! अप ीलकता को, कई बार, 3दान क? गई है । अपीलकता को यह स9ू चत /कया जाता है /क राUW!य राजधानी <ेV दIल! म &वतरण लाइससधार! क8प नीयो को डीईआरसी वारा दए गए, लाइसस डीईआरसी /क वेबसाइट पर उपल>ध है , िजसका लंक है :- http://www.derc.gov.in/license-issued-to-utilities इसके अलावा, Bी आर एल लाडवाल को बीएसईएस यमुना पावर ल मटे ड को लाइसस जार! करने से संबं9धत डीईआरसी क? फाइल का Dनर!<ण करने क? अनुमDत द! गई थी और उAत फाइल से उनके वारा अनरु ो9धत सभी द;तावेज 16.08.2017 को और एक बार /फर 13.05.2022 को 3दान /कए गए थे। बीएसईएस यमुना पावर ल मटे ड का बीड द;तावेज न तो डीईआरसी के पास है और न ह! यह डीईआरसी के काय^ के अंतगत आता है । इसके अलावा बीएसईएस यमुना पावर ल मटे ड को लाइसस जार! करने से संबं9धत द;तावेज1 के अलावा, डीईआरसी के पास कोई अ$य Cरकॉड उपल>ध नह!ं है ।"
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission dated 20.11.2024 filed by Mr. Chandra Kant Roy, JS/CPIO is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"(a) The appellant vide his RTI dated 05.12.2022 which was transferred to DERC from CERC vide CERC letter dated 06.12.2022 had raised 04 queries.
(b) The PIO, DERC vide his reply dated 15.12.2022 had informed the Appellant that he has already inspected the file related to the issue of Licence to BSES Yamuna Power Limited and the documents requisitioned by him from the said have already been forwarded to him vide DERC letter dated 16.08.2017 and once again copies of these document were forwarded to him on 13.05.20222. The appellant was also informed regarding the Hon'ble CIC's decision in the matter of CIC/AT/A/2007/00112 dated 04.12.2007, wherein, it was ruled that once an information is in the Public domain the same does not fall within the purview of the RTI Act, 2005.
(c) The Appellant was also informed that the issues at Point No. 2 and 4 do not pertain to DERC.Page 10 of 68
(d) It will be seen that Point No.1 is more of a statement/challenge which the PIO, DERC is not supposed to respond. All related documents available with reference to the issue of licence have been provided to the individual. Furthermore, copy of the licence issued to BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. are also uploaded in the Commission's website and as such available in the pubic domain and are exempt under RTI Act, 2005.
(e) The appellant has made reference to two file numbers in his query at Point No.2 and 4 which do not pertain to DERC and the appellant has been informed accordingly.
2. It is also informed that the appellant had appealed to the First Appellate Authority, DERC and his appeal was disposed off by the First Appellate Authority, DERC vide his Order dated 20.01.2023.
3. Conclusion: It is submitted that Sh. R. L. Ladwal's repeated RTI's on the same and allied matter amount to a process of abusing the provisions of the RTI Act 2005. Repeated replying to Sh. R.L. Ladwal especially when he is already in receipt of all available information in the matter of issue of licence to BSES Yamuna Power Limited is nothing short of harassment of the PIO, DERC and wasting the resources of DERC."
CIC/DERCM/A/2023/120099 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28.11.2022 CPIO replied on : 13.12.2022 First appeal filed on : 30.01.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 27.02.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 30.05.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 28.11.2022 seeking the following information:
"Q 1 Bी J P चलासानी (CEO) (BSES) LTD ने और Bी अDनल अंबानी (M/D) & डाइरे Aटर (BSES) ने द! 20/9/2002 section 20 तथा electricity Act 2003 मे (BSES Yamuna Power Ltd) का license मांगा था Bी M L शमा सेGेटर! (DERC) से बताया जावे यह license issue हुआ अथवा नह! बताया जावे।
(A) (BYPL)license CIN U 74899 DL 2001 PLC 111525 dt 4/7/2001।Page 11 of 68
(B) (BYPL) license CIN U 40109 DL 2001 PLC 111525 dt 4/7/2001 Pvt. मंब ु ई कंपनी है इसका दे वे।
Q 2 ROC पV RTI/Nov/2022/SK/517 & 520/dt 02.11.2022 मे (BSES) & (BYPL) के पास (BID) ठे का नह! है अतः भUWाचार मे (PIO DERC) ने IPC 182 मे गलत सूचना द! है (CIC) वारा (DERC) चेयरमेन पर 15 करोड़ का जुमाना /कया जावे न F-9/36/4860/dt 22/11/22 DERC-1,2,3 जानकार! नह! है ।
Q 3 (DVB) CEDEDCL के चेयरमेन Director जगद!श सागर & Bी रमेश चंXा (Add चीफ़ सेGेटर!) पावर है और इनके वारा (DVB CEDEDCL) को 04/7/2001 मे license 3ाZत है ।
Q 4 इनमे कौन सा License सह! है सह! Cरपोट द! जावे।
Q5 अपील CIC/DERCM/A/2022/103082/UM & 103056 DT 30/9/22 सह! Cरकॉड दे वे।
Q 6 अपील CIC/DOPWR/A/2021/15287/UM DT 01/9/22 मे क$टे 8Zट क मशन है ।
Q 7 BSES ने रे 9500 सो करोड़ क? TEX चोर! क? है ।
Q 8 रे 272 /- RN 65 जमा है document नह! दये है DERC/ID/2602/dt 21/4/17।"
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 13.12.2022 stating as under:
"\बंद ु 1, 4, दIल! के राUW!य राजधानी <ेV म &वतरण लाइससधार! क8पनीयो को DERC वारा दए गए, लाइसस DERC /क website पर उपल>ध है , िजसका लंक है :- http://www.derc.gov.in/license-issued- to-utilities.
3ाथH को यह स9ू चत /कया जाता है /क BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. के लाइसस से स8बं9धत DERC म उपल>ध फाइल को DनCर<ण करने का मौका दया गया था और मांगे गए द;तावेज1 को 3ाथH को पV दनांक 16.08.2017 और 13.05.2022 वारा 3दान /कया है ।Page 12 of 68
इसके अलावा, आवेदक का 2यान माननीय सीआईसी के Dनणय CIC/AT/A/2007/00112 दनांक 04.12.2007 क? ओर आक&षत /कया जाता है , िजसम यह कहा गया है /क सावजDनक डोमेन पर उपल>ध जानकार! को आरट!आई अ9धDनयम, 2005 के 3ावधान1 के तहत दे ने क? आव4यकता नह!ं है ।
\बंद ु 2, 3, 6 वांDछत जानकार! डीईआरसी से संबं9धत नह!ं है ।
\बंद ु 5: इस स8ब$ध म आवेदक को पV No. F.9 (36)/DERC/RTI-3716/2022-23/1596 दनांक 18.10.2022 और पV No. F.9 (36) / DERC/RTI-4205/2022-23/1685 दनांक 02.11.2022 वारा जबाब दया जा चक ू ा है ।
\बंद ु 7- आवेदक वारा मांगी गई जानकार! एक आरोप है , जो क? सच ू ना अ9धकार अ9धDनयम, 2005 के दायरे म नह!ं आते है ।
\बंद ु 8:- इस स8ब$ध म आवेदक को पV No.F.9 (36) / DERC/RTI-2602/2022- 23/2022-23/Appeal No.553/1853/1857 दनांक 08.12.2022 वारा जबाब दया जा चक ू ा है और BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. और BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. के लाइसस क? 3Dतया भेजा गया है ।
WEAR FACE MASK" "WASH HANDS REGULARLY" "MAINTAIN SOCIAL DISTANCING" "GET VACCINATED""
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 30.01.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 27.02.2023, held as under:
"इस अपील के अवलोकन से यह fात होता है /क दए गए \बंद,ु शकायत, अधरू े और अ;पUट बयान है तथा आ रट!आ ई अ9धDनयम, 2005 के धारा 2 (च) के 3ावधान1 के तहत द! गई जानकार! के दायरे म नह!ं आ ते हR। आ रट!आ ई अ9धDनयम, 2005 क? धारा 2 (च) Dन8न लQखत है :-
(च) "सच ू ना" से /कसी इलेAWाDनक KKप म धाCरत अ भलेख, द;तावेज, fापन, ई-मेल, मत, सलाह, 3ेस &वfिZत, पCरपV, आ दे श, लागबक ु , सं&वदा, Cरपोट, कागजपV, नमून,े माडल, आ ंकड़1 संबंधी सामTी और /कसी 3ाइवेट Dनकाय से संबं9धत ऐसी सच ू ना स हत, िजस तक तMसमय 3वj ृ /कसी अ$य &व9ध के अधीन /कसी लोक 3ा9धकार! क? पहुंच हो सकती है , /कसी Kम म कोई सामTी अ भ3ेत है ;Page 13 of 68
सच ू ना अ9धकार अ9धDनयम, 2005 के अंतगत, डीईआरसी केवल उपल>ध जानकार! ह! 3दान कर सकता है एतं PIO, DERC वारा, उपल>ध जानकार! अपीलकता को, कई बार, 3दान क? गई है । अपीलकता को यह स9ू चत /कया जाता है /क राUW!य राजधानी <ेV दIल! म &वतरण लाइससधार! क8पनीयो को डीईआरसी वारा दए पर उपल>ध है , िजसका लंक गए, लाइसस डीईआरसी /क वेबसाइट है :- http://www.derc.gov.in/license-issued-to-utilities इसके अलावा, Bी आर एल लाडवाल को बीएसईएस यमुना पावर ल मटे ड को लाइसस जार! करने से संबं9धत डीईआरसी क? फाइल का Dनर!<ण करने क? अनुमDत द! गई थी और उAत फाइल से उनके वारा अनरु ो9धत सभी द;तावेज 16.08.2017 को और एक बार /फर 13.05.2022 को 3दान /कए गए थे। बीएसईएस यमुना पावर ल मटे ड का बीड द;तावेज न तो डीईआरसी के पास है और न ह! यह डीईआरसी के काय^ के अंतगत आता है । इसके अलावा बीएसईएस यमुना पावर ल मटे ड को लाइसस जार! करने से संबं9धत द;तावेज1 के अलावा, डीईआरसी के पास कोई अ$य Cरकॉड उपल>ध नह!ं है ।"
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
A written submission dated 20.11.2024(copy marked to the appellant) has been filed by Mr. Chandra Kant Roy, JS/CPIO, which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
(a) Vide RTI application dated 28.11.2022, Sh. R.L. Ladwal had forwarded an RTI application with 08 points. In this context, it is submitted that on perusal of the said application, it will be seen that the applicant's queries are not clear.
(b) That most of his queries as could be made out are in the form of statements and allegations which do not fall within the purview of the RTI Act 2005.
(c) That the matter asked under the so called RTI applications generally pertain to the issue of Licence to BSES Yamuna Power Limited.
(d) That the applicant was given a fair opportunity to inspect the file pertaining to the issue of licence to BSES Yamuna Power Limited in the year 2017 and on his request he was provided copies of documents that he had identified by the applicant on 16.08.2017. That the RTI applicant was once again given a copy of these documents on 13.05.2022.
(e) That on 08.12.2022, he was once again provided copies of the licences issued to both BSES Yamuna Power Limited and to BSES Rajdhani Power Limited.Page 14 of 68
(f) That the copies of licences issued to the utilities are all available on the Commission's website and as such are in Public Domain and do not fall within information to be provided under RTI Act 2005.
(g) That Point No. 2 and 6 do not pertain to DERC and are neither clear.
However, Point No. 2 and 3 were transferred to the PIO, Department of Power, GNCTD. Whereas Point No. 5 and 6 quote the Hon'ble CIC's file number etc., the query related to which do not seem clear.
(h) That a reply to his Point No. 5 had already been sent earlier vide DERC letters dated 18.10.2022 and 02.11.2022.
(i) That Sh. R. L. Ladwal made an appeal to the First Appellate Authority, DERC in this matter and the same was disposed off by the First appellate Authority, DERC vide his order dated 02.07.2023. Conclusion:
2.It is submitted that Sh. R. L. Ladwal's repeated RTI's on the same and allied matter amount to a process of abusing the provisions of the RTI act 2005. Repeated replying to Sh. R. L. Ladwal especially when he is already in receipt of all available information in the matter of issue of licence to BSES, Yamuna Power Limited is nothing short of harassment of the PIO, DERC and wasting the resources of DERC.
3. A list containing the crux of decisions rendered by Hon'ble Information Commissioners earlier on previous appeal in the matters of Sh. R. L. Ladwal Vs PIO, DERC is annexed herewith as Annexure -I for information please."
CIC/DOPWR/A/2022/159902 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 09.09.2022 CPIO replied on : 07.10.2022 First appeal filed on : 26.10.2022 First Appellate Authority's order : 23.11.2022 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 21.12.2022 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 09.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"Q1 (BSES LTD) & (BYPL) दोनो क8पनी पर \बड नह!ं है \बड है तो दे वे। Q2 (BSES) को (BYPL) कैसे मानते हR (Why) AलेCर/फकेसन दे वे।Page 15 of 68
Q3 M/S DVBCEDEDCL म BSES PVT. क8पनी को /कसने अपॉइंटमट /कया है - ल!गल Cरकाड दे वे।"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 07.10.2022 stating as under:
"Kindly refer to your RTI application received in this department from Joint Secretary, Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, vide letter No.F.9(36)/DERC/RTI-4806/2022-23/1485 dated 30.09.2022 for providing information under RTI Act. The available information has already been provided to you vide our letter No.F.4(6)/Power/2021/1977 dated 04.10.2022 (copy enclosed)."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.10.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 23.11.2022, held as under:
"The undersigned observed in compliance of directions of Hon'ble Central Information Commission vide letter No.F.4(6)/Power 2021/1977 dated
04.10.2022 the PIO (Power) has already been provided the requisite information to the applicant.
The undersigned has reached the conclusion that reply of PIO (Power) is appropriate.
The Appeal is disposed off accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/DOPWR/A/2023/138992 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.09.2022 CPIO replied on : 13.09.2022 First appeal filed on : 03.02.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 01.03.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.09.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 02.09.2022 seeking the following information:Page 16 of 68
"Q 1 मेर! क8Zलट 23.06.2022 o/o Dy सेGेटर! पावर वारा एAशन टे केन रे कॉड दे वे (कॉपी सल]न है ) A joint venture of BSES with Govt NCT दIल! with 25% & 50% पैसे वा&पस दया जावे।
Q 2 file HR/BYPL/VC/19-20/2005/2006-2007 dt June 2006 मे suspension order to provide report A joint venture of BSES with Govt of NCT Delhi का स टफाइड़ Cरकॉड दे वे &वद डॉकयुमट स हत दे वे (BSES) लैसस दे वे और (YPL) लैसस दे वे।"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13.09.2022 stating as under:
"Kindly refer to your application received in this department from Dy. Secretary (RTI)/P.I.O. Chief Minister Office, vide letter No.F.1/CM/RTI/2022/ID-843/33702 dated 05.09.2022 for providing information under RTI Act. In this regard it is to inform that sought information is not clear and is not covered under definition of information' under RTI Act. Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information or to interpret the information. However, the complete copy of license allotted to the (BSES-YPL) by the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission is available on the website http://www.derc.in/license-issued- to-utilities."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.02.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 01.03.2023, held as under:
"The undersigned observed that sought information is not clear and Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information or to interpret the information. However, the available information has already been provided to the applicant.
The undersigned has reached the conclusion that reply of PIO (Power) is appropriate.
The Appeal is disposed off accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/DOPWR/A/2023/138993 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.06.2023
Page 17 of 68
CPIO replied on : 23.06.2023
First appeal filed on : 06.07.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 04.08.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.09.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 19.06.2023 seeking the following information:
"Q 1 ID काड इशू (BSES) or (YPL) A joint venture govt NCT of Delhi है employee No (DVB) & EN 25105 है अतः (BSES) or (YPL) का नो ट/फ़केशन &वद जोवइंट वचर दलावे अ$यथा 15 करोड़ का जुमाना लगाया जावे।
Q 2 NF 11/118/2001/power/180/dt 29.05.2022 मे (BSES) क? (BID) दे वे तथा NF- 11/106/2018/पावर/2174/dt 9.7.2015 मे (BSES) Ltd and Govt NCT of Delhi Regd company Act 1956 with जोवइंट वचर दया जावे।
(A) spe (CP) crime (DN3020) dt 19.06.2023 ATR दे वे।
(B) complaint CM (o) dt 20.06.2023 क? ATR द! जावे & 14.06.2023 with (CERC) (सेGेटर!) क? Cरपोट द! जावे।"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.06.2023 stating as under:
"Kindly refer to your RTI application received in this department from Dy. Secretary (RTI)/P.I.O. of Chief Minister Office vide letter No.F.1/CM/RTI/2023/ID-550/21601 dated 21.06.2023 for providing information under RTI Act. In this regard it is to inform that no such information is available in this department."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.07.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 04.08.2023, held as under:
"The undersigned observed that sought information is not available in this department and it is noteworthy that a Public Information Officer can provide only the information available as a material in the records of the concerned authority.
The Appeal is disposed off accordingly."Page 18 of 68
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/DOPWR/A/2023/138989 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.09.2022 CPIO replied on : 20.09.2022 First appeal filed on : 03.02.2023 First Appellate Authority's order : 01.03.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 20.09.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 02.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"1 आज भी मेसस (DVB सWल ई;ट दIल! इले॰ `डि;W>यूशन कंपनी ल मटे ड कंपनी आज भी चालू है Reply PIO पावर & DERC वारा id 1351 तथा DERC dt 26/9/17 & 31/5/18 है । NF/DVB/TRANSFAR/PRC/134/dt27/12/2001।
2 BSES Ltdपर \बड़ ठे का नह! है /F 11/118/2001/P/dt29/5/02 है ।
3 (BYPL) पर भी \बड़ ठे का नह! है । जाइंट वRचर भी नह! है ।
4 (\बजल! मं Vी) Bी सMयX जैन (घोटाला भUWाचार मे बंद है । (BSES LTD) को उ$होने बैठाया है बताया जावे।
5 भUWाचार घोटाला चेयरमेन शवीहुल हसनेन शशVी DERC & (PR सेGेटर! पावर) रमेश चंXा CEDEDCL है । Director है तथा Sh. S S Dua चेयरमेन (MD (DPCL) है । (Affidavit) शेयर होIडर एTीमट नोटर! साइन नह! है तथा (A) (BSES LTD) (B) (DPCL) and (C) (DVBCEDEDCL) का आपस मे समझोता डील साइन नह! है सब भUWाचार मे चालू है । N.F.-11/127/2020/PIO-ID-1256/पावर/2322/ द.06/8/2020.है . PIO- पावर. - संजय कुमार / कम सह/ मो हत शमा /RK. शमा - ग लत सच ू ना दे रहे है । इनपर एक एक करोड जुमाना /कया जावे/CIC वारा/यह पा लसी मैटर नह!ंहै करZपशन मैटर है । nUWाचार- घोटाला मैटर है . अ$यथा सभी Legal डोकुमट दे वे । िजसक? वजह से ₹ 9500 सौ करोड क? टे Aस चौर! क? है (BSES-LTD) ने / और इसको द०-01/7/2002 से आजतक / Page 19 of 68 DVB/म (PR Secy) (पावर) नेBी रम ेशच$Xा न करोडो े क? (डील nUWाचार म) 3ाZत करके\बना Cरकाड केबैठाया हुआ है जब/क द०-27/6/2002. AFFIDAVIT. नोटर! साइन नह!ं है . तथा (A) (BSES) & (B) DPCL) & (C) (DVB) समझौता साइन नह!ं है । सब nUWाचार म चालू है कृपया ल!गल Cरकाड दया जावे। अ$यथा-S/C-S/T Act, 2014&2015 म 4 (2) BS मे& E & ACT 3 म FIR क? जावेकॉपी देवे।
6. 29/8/2005- मे(BSES) नेपि>लक सव+$ट को। मझ ु ेAct. CCS-CCA Rule 10(2) म स;पै$ड /कया है -अतः (BSES) PVT क० के लयेमझ ु ेpल CCS-CCA Act 10(2) म Bी राUWपDतजी का ;पेशल पावर पV दया जावे। अ$यथा स;पै$सन आडर 29/8/2005. Set aside /कया जावे ? तथा सभ ी रोकेहुयेबे Dन/फट वापसी /कयेजावे।
7. BSES License नह!ं है (BSES) Joint Venture नह!ं है (BSES) रिज० क8पनी नह!ं है ? अगर है तो ल!गल Cरकाड देवे।
8. IInd अपील-FN-CIC/MA/A/2008/01511/Dt.26/12/2008 decision-N- 3523/IC/A/2008/ Discom. Stay है गलत सच ू ना द! है ।
9 अपील (25/2020) dt 29/9/2020 on (FAA HCD)/CIC Decision-IN A CIC/HCDEL/A/2018/161823/BJ/dt 13/3/2020 and B CIC/SCOFI/A/2018/141618/dt 18-19/11/2019 organization DISCOMI Govt कंपनी मे (why) BSES कंपनी /कसक? अथॉCरट! से Inplace of DISCOMI Govt company मेहै बताया जावे।"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 20.09.2022 stating as under:
"Kindly refer to your RTI application received in this department from Dy. Secretary (RTI)/P.Ι.Ο. Chief Minister Office, vide letter No.F.1/CM/RTI/2022/ID-886/34736 dated 12.09.2022 for providing information under RTI Act. In this regard it is to inform that sought information is not clear and is not covered under definition of 'information' under RTI Act. Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information or to interpret the information."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.02.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 01.03.2023, held as under:
Page 20 of 68"The undersigned observed that sought information is not clear and Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information or to interpret the information. It is also observed that applicant is habitual to file repetition of a RTI-application or adding one or two points to the already sought information via previous RTI applications, it cause waste of time and energy of the Public Authority which is unreasonable. The Appeal is disposed off accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/DOPWR/A/2023/121049 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 07.07.2022 CPIO replied on : 19.07.2022 First appeal filed on : 28.02.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 20.03.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10.05.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 07.07.2022 seeking the following information:
"Q1 RTI/2015/PP/dt 23.10.2015 मे जवाब दया है मेरा पV 24.05.2015 तथा (CM Office) पV F/6/2/2015/PGC/Wां;फ/22193/ दनाक 29.09.2015 एव F1/CM/RTI/2015/ID/6455/36742/ द29.08.2015/जो ROC मे 30.09.15 & 09.10.2015 को 3ाZत हुआ है । उसमे बतावे।
Q2 नोट : मझ ु े बताया जावे पV A/M (PP)/2019/133 dt 20.09.2019 मे (DVB सWल ई;ट दIल! इले॰) कंपनी क? (Ms पदनी संघला सेGेटर! पावर)/चेरमेन है । एव Bी रमेश चंदा (ACS) चेरमेन थे अतः बताया जावे (DVBCEDEDCL) ने अपना नाम चज /कया है (BSES Yamuna power Ltd.) रखा है ।
Q3 अतः यह नाम चज क? एिZलकेशन (DVB) के /कस डाइरे Aटर सेGेटर! पावर ने द! है उसका नाम बताया जावे और परू ा Cरकॉड दया जावे।Page 21 of 68
Q4 FAA 1080 dt 04.12.15/साहू/ROC वारा Right company सWल ई;ट दIल! इलैिAWक इं;ट!bयूशन क है ।"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 19.07.2022 stating as under:
"Point No 1 to 4 Sought information is not clear and is not covered under definition of 'information' under RTI Act. Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information or to interpret the information."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.02.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 20.03.2023, held as under:
"The undersigned observed that sought information is not clear and Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information or to interpret the information. It is also observed that applicant is habitual to file repetition of a RTI application or adding one or two points to the already sought information via previous RTI applications, it cause waste of time and energy of the Public Authority which is unreasonable. The Appeal is disposed off accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/GNCTD/A/2022/155383 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 12.08.2022 CPIO replied on : 22.08.2022 First appeal filed on : 26.10.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 09.11.2022 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25.11.2022 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 12.08.2022 seeking the following information:
"Q 1 अपील CIC/DELTL/A/2020/119314/dt 22.11.2021 मे (A) Ram Vs DTL (B) ऊजा मंVालय दIल! ND 2 आदे श द! 22.11.2021 है तcय 31.12.2019 एव संrया 1 के अनस ु ार मझ ु े (BSES) or (Yamuna Power LTD) दोन1 कंपनी का जाइंट वचर 15 दनो मे दे ना था जो आज तक नह! दया है कृपया जाइंट वचर दया जावे।Page 22 of 68
Q 2 अपील CIC/DOPWR/A/2020/119372 DT 22.11.2021 मे Ram Vs. PIO पावर &वभाग दIल! तcय 3ाथH द 17.03.2020 के अपने आवेदन मे (BSES) कंपनी वारा जनता के पैसे लट ू कर अपने खातो मे लेने के तर!को &वशेषकर जब/क कंपनी के पास न (लैसस) है और नाह! यह पंजीकृत है (अतः डोकूमट दे व)े (DVB मे) /कसने बैठाया है बतावे।
Q 3 (BSES) कंपनी को (BID) नह! मल! है Document दे वे।
Q 4 (BYPL) कंपनी को (BID) नह! मल! है रे कॉड दे वे।
Q 5 Bी सMयदर जैन (पावर मंVी ऊजा) दIल! भUWाचार मे ब$द है ।"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 12.08.2022 stating as under:
"Please find enclosed herewith application under the RTI Act, 2005 of Sh. Ramlal Ladwal, B-4/298, Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093 received in this office on 12.08.2022.
Since the requested information also pertains or held by your office, the instant application in original is hereby transferred u/s 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 for providing information directly to the applicant under intimation to this office."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 22.08.2022 stating as under:
"Kindly refer to your application received in this department from Dy. Secy./PIO, Chief Minister Office, vide letter No.F.1/CM/RTI/2022/ID- 767/31344/153 dated 12.08.2022 for providing information under RTI Act. In this regard it is to inform that information is not clear and is not covered under definition of information' under RTI Act. Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information or to interpret the information."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 26.10.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 09.11.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Page 23 of 68CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/133563 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 01.11.2022 CPIO replied on : 17.11.2022 First appeal filed on : 14.12.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.01.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.08.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 01.11.2022 seeking the following information:
"Q 1 मेर! क8Zलट (PR Secy पावर) dt 23.06.2022 पर /कस 3कार क? कायवाह! है ATR Cरपोट दे वे।
A मै DVB क? (यमुना पावर ल मटे ड) स&वस कंपनी है मझ ु े \ब$द ु 2&4 मुझे इसी से (फ़ौरमेन पद) से Cरटायड /कया है 31.07.2012 मे & पV dt 28.11.2011 है (YPL) कंपनी क? ATR Cरपोट द! जावे। स टफ ाइड कॉपी के साथ द! जावे और Joint Venture कॉपी द! जावे।
Q 2 मझ ु े सीDनयर इंजीDनयर से भी Cरटायड /कया है पV द! 13.12.2012 है इसक? ATR Cरपोट द! जावे।
Q3 नोट (DVB) मे (BSES) को /कसने appointment /कया है ATR द! जावे अ$यथा PIO पर 10 करोड़ जुमाना /कया जावे।"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 09.11.2022 stating as under:
"Sh. Ramlaal Ladwal का पV दनांक 01/11/2022 जो /क जन सच ू ना के अ9धकार के अ9धDनयम 2005 के तहत इस कायालय म दनांक 02/11/2022 को 3ाZत हुआ है । मांगी गयी सच ू ना इस स9चवालय से स8बं9धत नह! है । मांगी गई सच ू ना आपके &वभाग से संबं9धत 3तीत होती है अतः सच ू ना के अ9धकार अ9धDनयम-2005 6 (3) के अंतगत यथो9चत कायवाह! हे तू आपको ह;तांतCरत /कया जा रहा है ।Page 24 of 68
मांगी गई सच ू ना सीधे आवेदनकता को उपI>ध करवाई जाये। य द, मांगी गई सूचना आपके &वभाग से संबं9धत नह!ं है तब आवेदनकता को स9ू चत करते हुए आर.ट!.आई संबं9धत &वभाग को ह;तांतCरत कर द! जाये।"
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 17.11.2022 stating as under:
"1 Your complaint received in this department vide dairy No.3599 dated 27.06.22 and same was forwarded to P.G.Cell vide letter No.F.11(64)/2022/Power/PG Cell/Comp./1282 dated 01.07.2022. Further, action taken report is not available in this department. Hence, RTI application is being forwarded to P.G.Cell under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
2 The sought information is not available in this department and same pertains to BSES YPL. Since, BSES YPL, has obtained stay on implementation of RTI Act on its authority, through High Court order dated 23.01.2007 in W.P. Nos. 542/2007, 543/2007 and 544/2007(copy enclosed). This department is not in position to transfer your RTI to BSES YPL, for seeking the information."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 24.11.2022 stating as under:
"I am directed to enclosed please find the reply of RTI application of Sh. Ramlal Ladwal B-4/298, Nand Nagari, Delhi-110093, received in P.G. Cell through Department of power GNCTD vide letter No. 2264 Dt. 17.11.2022 PG Cell Diary No. 1370 Dt. 21.11.2022, Regarding Service matter/retired Employee of BSES.
It is submitted that the grievance was registered on P.G. Cell web site portal vide grievance no. PGC/07/2022/07198 Dt. 29.07.2022 and forwarded to the Discom/BYPL.) The BYPL replied on 01.08.2022 on web site portal (Copy enclosed).
The same is being forwarded to you please."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.12.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 05.01.2023, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
Page 25 of 68Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/133548 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 28.11.2022 CPIO replied on : 20.12.2022 First appeal filed on : 03.02.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 01.03.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.08.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 28.11.2022 seeking the following information:
"Q 1 Bी J P चलासानी (CEO) (BSES) LTD ने और Bी अDनल अंबानी (M/D) & डाइरे Aटर (BSES) ने द 20/9/2002 section 20 तथा electricity Act 2003 मे (BSES Yamuna Power Ltd) का license मांगा था Bी M L शमा सेGेटर! (DERC) से बताया जावे यह license issue हुआ अथवा नह! बताया जावे।
(A) BYPL License CIN U 74899DL200IPLC111525 dt 4/7/2001 (B) BYPL License CIN U 40109DL2001PLC111525 dt 4/7/2008 Pvt मंब ु ई कंपनी है इसका Legal Recard दे वे।
Q 2 ROC पV RTI/Nov/2023/SK/517&520/dt 02/11/22 मे (BSES) & (BYPL) के पास (BID) ठे का नह! है अतः भUWाचार मे (PIO DERC) ने IPC 182 मे गलत सच ू ना द! है (CIC) वारा (DERC) चेयरमेन पर 15 करोड़ का जुमाना /कया जावे। नोट न F9/36/4860/dt 22.1.22 DERC जानकार! नह! है \ब$द ु 1,2 & 3.
Q 3 DVB CEDEDCL के चेरमेन Director Sh. जगद!श सागर & Bी रमेश चंXा (Add चीफ़ सेGेटर!) पावर है और इनके वारा DVBCEDEDCL को 04/7/2001 मे license 3ाZत है ।
Q 4 इनमे कोनसा license सह! है सह! Cरपोट द! जावे।
Page 26 of 68Q 5 अपील CIC/DERCM/A/2022/103082UM & 103056 dt 30/9/22 सह! Cरकॉड दे वे।
Q 6 अपील CIC/DOPWR/A/2021/152871-UM dt 01/9/22 मे क$टे 8Zट क मशन है ।
Q 7 BSESने रे 9500 सो करोड़ क? TEX चोर! क? है ।
Q 8 रे 272/- RN 65 जमाहै document नह! दये है ।"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 20.12.2022 stating as under:
"Kindly refer to your RTI application received in this department from Jt. Secretary/PIO, Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, vide letter No.F.9(36)/DERC/RTI-4887/2022-23/1888 dated 13.12.2022 for providing information under RTI Act. In this regard it is informed that sought information is not available in this department in r/o point No. 2 & 3."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 13.12.2022 stating as under:
"\बंद ु 1, 4, दIल! के राUW!य राजधानी <ेV म &वतरण लाइससधार! क8पनीयो को DERC वारा दए गए, लाइसस DERC /क website पर उपल>ध है , िजसका लंक है :-
http://www.derc.gov.in/license-issued- to-utilities 3ाथH को यह स9ू चत /कया जाता है /क BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. के लाइसस से स8बं9धत DERC म उपल>ध फाइल को DनCर<ण करने का मौका दया गया था और मांगे गए द;तावेज1 को 3ाथH को पV दनांक 16.08.2017 और 13.05.2022 वारा 3दान /कया है ।
इसके अलावा, आवेदक का 2यान माननीय सीआईसी के Dनणय CIC/AT/A/2007/00112 दनांक 04.12.2007 क? ओर आक&षत /कया जाता है , िजसम यह कहा गया है /क सावजDनक डोमेन पर उपल>ध जानकार! को आरट!आई अ9धDनयम, 2005 के 3ावधान1 के तहत दे ने क? आव4यकता नह!ं है ।
\बंद ु 2, 3, 6:- वांDछत जानकार! डीईआरसी से संबं9धत नह!ं है ।Page 27 of 68
\बंद ु 5 :- इस स8ब$ध म आवेदक को पV No.F.9(36)/DERC/RTI-3716/2022-23/1596 दनांक 18.10.2022 और पV No.F.9 (36) / DERC/RTI-4205/2022-23/1685 दनांक 02.11.2022 वारा जबाब दया जा चक ू ा है ।
\बंद ु 7:- आवेदक वारा मांगी गई जानकार! एक आरोप है , जो क? सच ू ना अ9धकार अ9धDनयम, 2005 केदायरेम नह!ं आतेहै ।
\बंद ु 8:- इस स8ब$ध म आवेदक को पV No.F.9 (36)/DERC/RTI-2602/2022- 23/2022-23/Appeal No.553/1853/1857 दनांक 08.12.2022 वारा जबाब दया जा चक ू ा है और BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. और BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. के लाइसस क? 3Dतया भेजा गया है ।"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.02.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 01.03.2023, held as under:
"Whereas, the undersigned examined the reply furnished by PIO, Department of Power, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide his letter No.F.11(27)/2022-23/3rd-Qtr/PIO-2595/Power/2483 dated 20.12.2022 and the contents of the First Appeal filed by the Appellant. The Appellant not appeared during the hearing held on 01.03.2023. After examination the undersigned has reached the conclusion that sought information is not available in this department and Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information or to interpret the information.
The Appeal is disposed off accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/129413 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30.12.2022 CPIO replied on : 16.01.2023 First appeal filed on : 03.02.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 01.03.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.07.2023 Information sought:
Page 28 of 68The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 30.12.2022 seeking the following information:
"Q 1 मR फोरे मेन By post 31.07.2012 मे Cरटायर /कया हैजब/क मेर! इंGेमट अ3ै ल मे लगायी जाती हैमेर! इंGेमट माच 2012 मे Kपय B/pay Rs 19090/- थी अतः अ3ैल 2012 मे B/pay Rs 19790/- से करना था मझ ु े नह! /कया गया हैबताया जावे /कस लए?
अतः मझ ु े मेर! इंGेमट लगाकर फोरमैन पद से Cरटायर दे वे। /फ़Aसेशन अ3ैल मंथ या जनवर! मंथ मे दे कर /फ़Aसेशन क? जावे और मझ ु े इसका Cरकॉड दया जावे।
Q 2 सीDनयर इंजीDनयर (पद) से मझ ु े Cरटायर नह! /कया हैइसका Cरकॉड दे वे।
Q 3 कोट (POIT-ID) 1088/16-dt 01/140/2022 मे (BSES) क? (BYPL) को `डल!ट कर दया हैअतः (BSES) के बारे मे कुछ न कहे । क$टे 8Zट ऑफ कोट हैअ$यथा (PIO & FAA) पर 15 करोड़ का जुमाना CIC करे ।"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 16.01.2023 stating as under:
"Kindly refer to your RTI application received in this department from Dy. Secretary (RTI)/PIO, Chief Minister Office, vide letter No.F.1/CM/RTI/ 2023/ID-19/827 dated 09.01.2023 for providing information under RTI Act.
In this regard it is to inform that sought information is not available in this department and same comes under the jurisdiction of DISCOM (BYPL). Since, DISCOMs, has obtained stay on implementation of RTI Act on its authority, through High Court order dated 23.01.2007 in W.P. Nos.
542/2007, 543/2007 and 544/2007(copy enclosed). This department is not in position to transfer your RTI to DISCOM (BYPL), for seeking the information."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.02.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 01.03.2023, held as under:
"The undersigned has reached the conclusion that the reply furnished by PIO (Power) is in order since sought information is not available in this department and same comes under the jurisdiction of DISCOM (BYPL) and it is amply clear that DISCOMs has obtained stay on implementation of RTI Act on its authority, through High Court and this department is not in position to transfer RTI to DISCOM (BYPL).Page 29 of 68
The Appeal is disposed off accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/129412 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 02.09.2022 CPIO replied on : 13.09.2022 First appeal filed on : 03.02.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 01.03.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.07.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 02.09.2022 seeking the following information:
"Q 1 RTI PIO पावर 62 ID 76 dt 16/7/17 & ID 110 dt 02/8/2017 & ID 488 dt 4/7/2018/&/ID 502 dt 17/7/18, and/ID 503 dt 17/3/2018/and/ID 570 dt 26/9/2018/and/ID 503 dt 17/3/2018/and/ID 570 dt 26/9/2018/and/ID 533 dt 25/9/2008/मे PIO पावर ने कहा है /क discom issue company of erstwhile (DVB) Hon'ble हाइ कोट दIल! order dt 23/1/2017 in WP No 542/2007, 543/2007 & 544/2007 ;टे है और (CIC) dt 3/1/2006 मे डाइरे Aटर Discom I मे DVB) मे एZपोइंटमट /कया है गलत सच ू ना द! है । अतः M/s CEDEDCL ( दIल! &वधत ु बोड) मे आज तक ;टे नह! है । और (;टे ) मे कभी भी (BSES 3ाइवेट) कंपनी नह! चला सकते है । अतः यह (Gाइम-Gाइम) है उjर सह! दया जावे।
Q 2 नो ट/फ़केशन (DVB)/transfer/PRC/134/dt27/12/2001-\ब$द ु 3 मे (CEDEDCL) Govt कंपनी आज भी चालू है - Cरकॉड दे वे।"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 13.09.2022 stating as under:
"Kindly refer to your application received in this department from Dy. Secretary (RTI)/P.I.O. Chief Minister Office, vide letter. No.F.1/CM/RTI/2022/ID-844/33700 dated 05.09.2022 for providing Page 30 of 68 information under RTI Act. In this regard it is to inform that sought information is not clear and is not covered under definition of information' under RTI Act. Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information or to interpret the information."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.02.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 01.03.2023, held as under:
"The undersigned observed that sought information is not clear and Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information or to interpret the information. It is also observed that applicant is habitual to file repetition of a RTI application or adding one or two points to the already sought information via previous RTI applications, it cause waste of time and energy of the Public Authority which is unreasonable.
The Appeal is disposed off accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/129411 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 16.03.2023 CPIO replied on : 24.03.2023 First appeal filed on : 19.05.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 15.06.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.07.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 16.03.2023 seeking the following information:
"Q 1 (DVB) सWल ई;ट दIल! गवनमट क8पनी म / (BSES) 3ाईवेट क8पनी को /कसने एपोई$ट मै$ट /कया है बताया जावे with Cरकॉड ल!गल दया जावे"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 24.03.2023 stating as under:
Page 31 of 68"इस स8ब$ध म स9ू चत /कया जाता है /क आपके वारा मांगी गई जानकार! पुनराव&ृ j और अ;पUट है और उपल>ध जानकाCरया अधोह;ता<र! वारा समय समय पर सच ू ना केअ9धकार केअंतगत उपल>ध करवा द! गई है ।
आवेदक का 2यान मननीय सी.आई.सी. के दनांक 13.01.2023 (Ramlal Vs. PIO/Nodal Officer), RTI Cell, Department of Power, Appeal No. CIC/DOPWR/A/2022/135677-145676-142977) केDनणय को आक&षत /कया जाता है :-
Even a single repetition of RTI application would demand the valuable time of the public authority, first appellate authority and if it also reached second appeal, that of the Commission, which time can be spent to hear another appeal of a needy person or perform other public duty. Even repetition of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction to flow of information and defeats the purpose of RTI Act."
उपरोAत के म2यनजर अ;पUट और पुनराव&ृ j 34न1 के स8ब$ध म आवेदक को कोई भी जानकार! उपल>ध नह! क? जा सकती ।"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.05.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 15.06.2023, held as under:
"The undersigned observed that sought information is not clear and Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information or to interpret the information. It is also observed that applicant is habitual to file repetition of a RTI application or adding one or two points to the already sought information via previous RTI applications, it cause waste of time and energy of the Public Authority which is unreasonable.
The Appeal is disposed off accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/129410 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14.07.2022
CPIO replied on : 15.07.2022
Page 32 of 68
First appeal filed on : 19.05.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 15.06.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.07.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 14.07.2022 seeking the following information:
"Q 1 o/o दा (ACS) पावर &वभाग दIल! नो ट/फ़केशन N.file 11/118/2001/पावर/180/dt 29/5/2002 िजसमे BSES LTD को (DVB) क? BID नह! मल! है िजसमे \ब$द ु (i) मे 26% शेयर है । कॉपी सल]न है और MR रमेश चंXा (ACS) साइन है । स टफाइड कॉपी मझ ु े द! जावे। तथा सल]न नो ट/फ़केशन page 3 स टफाइड करके मझ ु े दया जावे।
Q 2 DERC/RTI/FA-3716/Appeal 519/270/ dt 05/5/2022 के वारा मझ ु े नो ट/फ़केशन F 11/118/2001/पावर/180-dt 29/5/2002 मझ ु े दया जावे/3Dत सल]न है ।
Q 3 PIO/power/NF-11/27/2019/ID-1272/P/471/ द॰27/1/2020 के \ब$द ु NF 11/118/2001/P/180 dt 29/5/2002 मे हमे नो ट/फ़केशन Wे स बल नह! है । अतः नो ट/फ़केशन साथ है स टफाइड करके दे वे। (PIO पावर संजय कुमार जी)"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 15.07.2022 stating as under:
"The information desired by the applicant is not available in the Chief Secretary Office. It seems that the same is available with you. Accordingly the application is transferred to you under Sub-Section (3) of Section 6 of Right to Information Act, 2005, for further necessary action.
In case it does not fall under your jurisdiction, it may please be further transferred to the Public authority to which the subject matter is more closely connected, directly, under intimation to the applicant.
The applicant has deposited the RTI fees of Rupees. 10/- Vide Receipt No. 10040 dated 14/07/2022."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.05.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 15.06.2023, held as under:
Page 33 of 68"The undersigned observed that relevant file is not available in this department and same has been informed to the applicant in his various RTI replies.
The Appeal is disposed off accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/129409 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26.01.2023 CPIO replied on : 16.01.2023 First appeal filed on : 03.02.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 01.03.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 07.07.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 26.01.2023 seeking the following information:
"DERC/IS-3034/dt 18/7/18 मे आपके वारा कहा है /क (BSES) पहले (DVBSEDEPCL) क? उjरा9धकार! थी बताया जावे /कस लये/Aयो/क (DVB) क? (DESU) उतरा9धकार! है ।"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 16.01.2023 stating as under:
"In this regard it is to inform that information sought is not clear. Hence, sought information in respect of Power Department may be treated as Nil."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.02.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 01.03.2023, held as under:
"The undersigned observed that sought information is not clear and Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information or to interpret the information. It is also observed that applicant is habitual to file repetition of a RTI application or adding one or two points to the Page 34 of 68 already sought information via previous RTI applications, it cause waste of time and energy of the Public Authority which is unreasonable.
The Appeal is disposed off accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/127491 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 27.10.2022 CPIO replied on : 17.11.2022 First appeal filed on : 14.12.2022 First Appellate Authority's order : 05.01.2023 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 22.06.2023 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 27.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Q 1 (BSES) or (YPL) का जाइंट वRचर नह! हैऔर (BSES) Ltd पर (Bid ठे का) नह! हैdt 28/11/11 & 29/8/5/कृपया Legal रे कॉड दलवे अ$यथा भUWाचार मे है।
Q 2 Bी रमेश चंXा (pr secy पावर)/&/Bी S S Dua M/D & चेयरमैन (DPCL) से/BSES Pvt कंपनी को \बना समझोता हुए (BSES & DPCL & DVB) को Gाइम मे BSES से चलवा रहे हैऔर (BSES) अपने खाने मे जनतामQण लूट रह! है। Legal Cरकॉड दे वे। सल]न पगे (5 से 13) हैDVB मे BSES कैसे Legal Cरकॉड दे वे।
Q 3 File 11/118/2001/पावर/180/dt 29/5/2001 & 2002-BSES को (BID ठे का नह! है) पावर वारा Cरकॉड नह! हैसब Gाइम हैCरकॉड दे वे।
Q 4 कोट म आज 019/2022 केस MISC-dt-288/22. न8बर-17 म मेर! पाटi LADWAL V/S DVBCENTRAL EAST DELHI. हैऔर पावर सेGेटर! पर क$टे 8पट औफ कोट है. BSES का Cरकाड दे वे।
Q 5 कोट ने कसे नंबर ID1088/16 POIT ADJ ने BSES को `डल!ट कर दया हैअब BSES- Pvt कंपनी बंद है। ATR Cरकॉड दे वे।Page 35 of 68
Q 6 (DVB) मे (BSES) LTD ने केस 02/2010 मे ADJ कोट दIल! मे (BSES) Sh. M M Pandey) L/Mgr ने अथॉCरट! लेटर दया है बताये ऐसा /कस लए है ATR दे वे।
ू ना दे ना है 10 करोड़ पेनाIट! दलावे।
Q 7 PIO वारा गलत सच Q 8 N.file 11/99/2001/Power/2867/dt 20.11.2001-Notification मे (LDLG) के साइन नह! है Cरकॉड दलावे।
Q 9 थड पाटi - BSES क? (BID) ठे का नो ट/फकेसन दलाने अ$यथा - भUWाचार। म पावर मंVी Bी सते$X जैन ब$द है - और केजर!वाल जी. आप भी भUWाचार/ म है -अ$यथा (BSES) क? \बड़-ठे का Dतथा License- दलावे-अ$यथा (दे श / राYय सरकार । क? p 9500 सौ करोड क? Tex चौर! (BSES LTD) ने/आपके वारा क? है - A.T.R Cरपोट दलावे- Aय1/क कोट ने BSES LTD क8पनी- 01/10/2022 म ब$द कर द! है -कापी संल]न है - ID-कैस-
1088/16. है .[पेज-14) पर है ।
Q 10 (BSES कंपनी) ने (DVB) एमई वकालतनामा अथॉCरट! द! है केस 02/2010 ADJ/Delhi कोट मे है यह Gाइम केस है Legal Cरकॉड दे वे/अ$यथा CIC/DOPWR/A/2021/152871/UM/dt 09/9/22 के वारा क$टे 8Zट ऑफ क मशन है तथा As per Law कोट है ।"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.11.2022 stating as under:
"यह पV आपके सच ू ना का अ9धकार आवेदन दनांक 09.11.2022 के संदभ म है । जो इस कायालय म अधोह;ता<र! को, PIO, Lt. Governer's Secretariat, Raj Niwas, के पV स.1142/RTI/22-23/RN/ID-46489/4183 दनांक 09.11.2022 को 3ाZत हुआ ।
इस स8ब$ध म यह दे खा गया है /क आवेदक ने &व भ$न आरट!आई आवेदन1 म एक ह! 3कार के 34न पूछे थे तथा Yयादातर 34न ;पUट नह!ं थे, और अधोह;ता<र! ने आवेदक को &वभाग से स8बं9धत जानकार! उपल>ध क? थी।
आवेदक का 2यान मननीय सी.आई.सी. के दनांक 19.02.2015 (Maniram Sharma Vs. Department of Justice, CIC/SA/A/2014/900704, CIC/SA/ A/2014/ 900708, CIC/SA/C/2014/900095) के Dनणय को आक&षत /कया जाता है :-Page 36 of 68
".... any repetition of a RTI application or adding one or two points to the already sought Information via previous RTI application would cause waste of time and energy of the Public Authority & the Commission, which is unreasonable as the appellant is already holding the Information given to his earlier application."
और मननीय सी.आई.सी. ने अपने Dनणय दनांक 09.07.2014 (Manjit Singh Bal Vs. SDM, GNCTD, CIC/AD/A/2013/001623SA) म कहा था /क:-
".... The Commission considers this case as the case of repetitive use of RTI assuming the proportion of harassment to the Public Authority and reckless abuse of RTI."
उपरोAत के म2यनजर पुनराव&ृ j 34न1 के स8ब$ध म आवेदक को कोई भी जानकार! उपल>ध नह! क? जा सकती ।"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.12.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 05.01.2023, held as under:
"The undersigned observed that applicant asked similar questions in various RTI applications and most of the questions were not clear and documents/information has already been provided to the applicants which were available in this department.
The undersigned has reached the conclusion that reply of PIO (Power) is appropriate.
The Appeal is disposed off accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/GNCTD/A/2023/120100 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26.10.2022 CPIO replied on : 01.11.2022 First appeal filed on : 24.11.2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 09.12.2022 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : NIL Page 37 of 68 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 26.10.2022 seeking the following information:
"Q1 u? मे \बजल! दे ना है (BSES कंपनी पर \बड़) ठे का नह! है (BID) दे वे अ$यथा सब nUटाचार मे है ।
Q2 (DVB) मे (BSES) pvt कंपनी आपक? अथॉCरट! से चालू है इसका परू ा Cरकॉड दया जावे।
Q3 कोट POIT ADJ/RADC केस नंबर ID 1088/16 मे (BSES क? BYPL) को Dनकाल दया है dt 1/10/2022 मे कॉपी सल]न है बताया जावे (BSES) /कसक? अथॉCरट! से चालू है ।
Q4 Bी सMये$दर जैन पावर मDन;टर / भUWाचार मे पहले ह! ब$द है . और केजर! वालनी आप भी nUWाचार म है अ$यथा (BSES) क? BID & License दलावे-िजसके कारण BSES ने/द ेश/राYय सरकार/क? ₹ 9500 सौ करोड क? Tax-चौर! क? है . अत: BSES का Legal Cरकाड दलावे ।
Q5 (BSES) कंपनी (DVB) मे वकालत नामा अथॉCरट! दे रह! है बतावे /कस लये।"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 01.11.2022 stating as under:
"इस स8ब$ध म यह देखा गया है /क आवे दक ने&व भ$न आरट!आई आवेदन1 म एक ह! 3कार के 34न प ूछेथेतथा Yयादातर 34न ;पUट नह!ं थे, और अधोह;ता<र! ने आवेदक को &वभाग सेस8बं9धत जानकार! उपल>ध क? थी।
आवेदक का 2यान मननीय सी.आई.सी. के दनांक 19.02.2015 (Maniram Sharma Vs. Department of Justice, CIC/SA/A/2014/900704, CIC/SA/A/2014/900708, CIC/SA/C/2014/ 900095) केDनणय को आक&षत /कया जाता है :-
".... any repetition of a RTI application or adding one or two points to the already sought information via previous RTI application would cause waste of time and energy of the Public Authority & the Commission, which is unreasonable as the appellant is already holding the information given to his earlier application."Page 38 of 68
और मननीय सी.आई.सी. ने अपने Dनणय दनांक 09.07.2014 (Manjit Singh Bal Vs. SDM, GNCTD, CIC/AD/A/2013/001623SA) म कहा था /क :-
".... The Commission considers this case as the case of repetitive use of RTI assuming the proportion of harassment to the Public Authority and reckless abuse of RTI."
उपरोAत के म2यनजर पुनराव&ृ j 34न1 के स8ब$ध म आवेदक को कोई भी जानकार! उपल>ध नह!ं क? जा सकती ।"
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.11.2022. The FAA vide its order dated 09.12.2022, held as under:
"The undersigned observed that applicant had asked similar questions in various RTI applications and most of the questions were not clear and documents/information has already been provided to the applicants which were available in this department.
The undersigned has reached the conclusion that reply of PIO (Power) is appropriate.
The Appeal is disposed off accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/DOPWR/A/2021/138107 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 22.05.2019 CPIO replied on : 29.05.2019 First appeal filed on : 20.06.2019
First Appellate Authority's order : 05.07.2019 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 09.09.2020 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 22.05.2019 seeking the following information:Page 39 of 68
"1 ID 245 dt 17/3/17 पV N.F.11(118)2001-pohk 180 dt 29/5/02 & No.F.11(106) 2013/Powr/2174/dt 09/7/2016 स टफाइड कॉपी दे वे.
2 ID 245 \ब$द ु 4 A शेयर होIडर एगTीमट with BSES Limited.
B BSES LTD with joint venture NCT of Govt of Delhi.
C BSES और NCT Govt of Delhi Registered co. Act 617 Act 1956 certified copy दे वे।
D BSES Dनजी कंपनी को सरकार! ऑ/फस मे /कसने बैठाया है उस authority का नाम बताया जाये.
3 ID 245 \ब$द ु 6 issue license DERC ने to BSES को order dt 11.3.2004 मे BSES को 25 yrs का license दया है उसक? स टफाइड कॉपी मझ ु े द! जावे।"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 29.05.2019 stating as under:
"The information sought by the applicant is not available in this Department and seems to be closely related to your departments. Hence, this application is being transferred to you as per provisions of sub section (3) of Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005 with the request to send the requisite information directly to the applicant.
In case it does not fall under your jurisdiction, it may please be further transferred to the Public Authority to which the subject matter is mere closely connected."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 20.06.2019. The FAA vide its order dated 05.07.2019, held as under:
"Whereas, the undersigned examined the reply furnished by PIO, Department of Power, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide his letter No.P.11(27)/2019/j-Qtr./PIO- 848/Power/1483 dated 07.06.2019 and the contents of the First Appeal filed by the Appellant. The appellant appeared during the hearing held on 01.07.2019 at 03.00 PM. After examination, the undersigned has reached the conclusion that the reply of PIO (Power) is appropriate. PIO (Power) supply the available Page 40 of 68 information to the Appellant and transfer the RTI application to the PIO (DERC) and PIO (DPCL) under section 6 (3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Whereas, the undersigned direct to PIO (Power) to make the effort to trace the file No. P. 11(118)/2001/Power and furnish the reply Point No. 04 mentioned as prayer by the Applicant in the RTI application.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/DOPWR/A/2022/116091 Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 30.04.2019 CPIO replied on : 02.05.2019 First appeal filed on : 16.05.2019
First Appellate Authority's order : 24.05.2019 2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 14.09.2021 Information sought:
The Appellant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 30.04.2019 seeking the following information:
"Q 1 F 11/118/2001/P/180/dt 29/5/2002 BSES का notification दे वे। इसक? file द! जाये।
Q 2 09/8/2002, 0rder / Roc/& NOTIFICATION/मे (CEDEDCL) को काटकर / BSES/ A BSES YAMUNA POWER Limited लखा है यह साईन /कसके है बताया जाये (A) A Govt Companied u/s of Association of companies Act 1956 (B) मे (BSES) YAMUNA POWER Limited लखा गया है - जब/क इसम (CEDEDCL) of A Govt Companies u/s 617 Act 1956 भी काहा है । बताया जाये ऐसा /कस लए है ।"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 02.05.2019 stating as under:
Page 41 of 68"Please find enclosed herewith RTI application of Sh. R.L.Ladwal, received in this department dated 30.04.2019 for seeking information, under RTI Act, 2005.
The information sought by the applicant seems to be closely related to your departments. Hence, this application is being transferred to you i.e. PIO, Delhi Power Company Limited, and PIO, Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission as per provisions of sub section (3) of Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005 with the request to send the requisite information directly to the applicant.
In case it does not fall under your jurisdiction, it may please be further transferred to the Public Authority to which the subject matter is more closely connected."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 16.05.2019. The FAA vide its order dated 24.05.2019, held as under:
"Whereas, the undersigned examined the reply furnished by PIO, Department of Power, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide his letter No.F.11(27)/2019/1st-Qtr./PIO- 819/Power/1244dated 02.05.2019 and the contents of the First Appeal filed by the Appellant. Neither the appellant nor any representative appeared during the hearing held on 15.05.2019 at 11:30 AM. After examination, the undersigned has reached the conclusion that the sought information in his RTI pertains to DERC & DPCL and PIO, Power already transferred the RTI to the concerned PIO's and the answer of the remaining question has already been give to the Appellant in his previous RTI.
The appeal is disposed off accordingly."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant/Appellant: Present in person.Page 42 of 68
Respondent: Mr. C K Roy, Joint Secretary/PIO along with Mr. Darpan Sharma, Dealing Assistant, DERC, and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SO/PIO, Power Department present in person.
Complainant/Appellant while narrating the factual background of the matters stated that he was an erstwhile employee of Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) who has been absorbed by BSES Power Limited in the year 2002 after unbundling and privatization of DVB into six different companies. Subsequently, he was suspended from the services on 29.08.2005 on the false allegations of corruption. Challenging the order of his suspension he filed a court case after which he was reinstated, thereafter, he was superannuated in 2012. He alleged that after retirement. He challenged the legacy of the functioning of BSES Yamuna Power Limited (BYPL) which is functioning with the Power Department, alleging that BYPL is working without carrying any valid license, bid terms and Joint Venture with the Ministry of Power. This is a case of massive corruption from the ground level as the BYPL on the one hand claiming themselves to be a private sector unit when it comes to rendering of services and on the other hand, they are working as a Public Sector Undertaking by providing public service of supplying electricity in collaboration with the Government. To expose the dual facet role and corruption of tax evasion by BYPL, the appellant has sought copy of bid condition and Joint Venture agreement of BSES with BYPL by filing numerous RTI application, however, the Respondent Public Authority malafidely withheld the information for the reasons best known to them. He also alleged the malpractices adopted by the Respondent Public Authority in issuing the suspension order to him by BYPL which has never been his employer. He alleged that being a category 'B' employee i.e. government servant which is governed by CCA/CCS Rules, his suspension order should be signed by DGM of BSES, who was his employer of the appellant at the relevant time, however, this fact was totally ignored and the suspension order issued against him was not as per the law. He prayed the Commission to direct the Respondent to provide a copy of bid conditions and copy of JV agreement executed between DERC and BYPL or in the event the same is not available, an affidavit for the same be given to him. He prayed the Commission to penalize the CPIO with an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for alleged faults. Complainant/Appellant also urged the Commission to grant him liberty to file written submission to substantiate his grounds for second appeal, which is granted by the CIC.Page 43 of 68
While summing up his arguments, the Complainant/Appellant summarized his arguments on the following points:
1) Respondents' organization claimed themselves as not a Public Authority:
When trifurcation and unbundling of DVB was done, there was a Tripartite agreement executed with the concerned Government, erstwhile DVB and worker's body as per which service condition of the absorbed staffs would remain unaltered and the workers were to be assigned to a Joint Venture Enterprise of Govt. of GNCTD with the concerned companies. Therefore, they are fit to be classified as "Public Authority" in terms of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
2) Any alteration in the conditions of the Tripartite agreement as referred above required re-negotiation with the workers concerned, which has not been done at all, therefore, the respondent is very well covered under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
3) Any Private Sector participation in the business of electricity distribution post-trifurcation of DVB would be possible only through open, transparent and competitive bidding. However, as per submissions of the respondent there is no agreement of such disinvestment/privatization available on record, which establishes that they are Public Authority and accountable under the RTI Act.
4) The Appellant/Complainant has been punished under CCS (CCA) Rules, which can be done only by a government officer and not by a private sector entity because the service conditions and rules governing the same could not have been altered as per tripartite agreement. It is noteworthy that only Government servants are authorized to administer the CCS (CCA) Rules and the respondents are claiming themselves to be competent as his employer, which issued suspension order of Appellant/Complainant. Thus, question of Respondent not being covered under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act is void ab initio.
5) The DISCOMs are levying charges and collecting taxes which only the government or its entities can do. For claiming tax benefits and rebates, Page 44 of 68 respondents classified themselves as Public Authority or 'Sarkar'.
However, when the information seekers file RTI applications to obtain genuine information, they deny the same claiming themselves to be a private sector unit, which is untenable under the law.
6) Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) has conducted Audit of the DISCOM. CAG doesn't audit private sector firms. Therefore, umbrage of being outside the definition of public authority is wrongly and illegally claimed by the DISCOMs whom the DERC and GoNCTD are helping to evade transparency, accountability and responsibility. This fact has been cleverly and willfully suppressed by all the three respondents.
7) In nutshell, the Appellant/Complainant alleged that respondents maintain duplicitous stand. They change their stance as per their convenience. They are playing the game of passing the buck when it comes to accountability, transparency and responsibility towards the citizens. DISCOMs washed their hands off by proclaiming themselves to be private organizations and thus, they willfully avoided the process of maintaining transparency and probity and accountability.
8) All transmission lines of electricity are laid using Telegraph Act,1885 on the ground of the same being public service and for public purposes.
9) Further, the DISCOMs usually claim/defend themselves before the APTEL, etc. as a Joint Venture Company which categorically indicates them as Public Authority.
10) By taking into count all the above points, the replies furnished by each of the Respondent to the Appellant against RTI applications are evasive, misleading and contradictory in nature.
11) Furthermore, the license period of DISCOM is already going to expire in the coming next two years. Whiling away this short period of two years in the given circumstances is very easy for the Respondents and the mighty DISCOMS with money power and colossal influence.
Page 45 of 6812) He is an ailing and aged person having uncertain period of his remaining life, therefore, deserves consideration for early hearing. Hence, there is an urgency to facilitate the requested information for getting justice.
13) He added that the only recourse available to him is to implead himself as a party in the WP (C) 542/2007, 543/2007 and 544/2007 pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court which at this belated stage does not seem feasible, or the CIC may grant liberty to the appellant/complainant to revive his cases i.e. instant appeals and complaints upon the final verdict of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on the issue of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act regarding DISCOM. Since he is an ailing and aged person and is not sure of his outliving the prolonged court cases and starting the process afresh de novo, his issues may be taken into consideration on a priority basis.
14) He contended that there are five basic public services for citizens of the Welfare State i.e. health, education, electricity, water and road. Many State Governments are bringing the Right to (Public) Services Act to ensure delivery of public services as per which the entities delivering the services are held accountable for deficiencies. Such legislations are complementarity to the Right to Information Act because they rely on flow of information to determine deficiencies. However, in contrast to it, respondents by declaring DISCOMS as private entities which will defeat the very purpose of such social welfare arrangement.
15) It is also noted that almost all the above five basic public services are being gradually privatized by the respondent government, which deny applicability of RTI Act being private sector entities. This is a sure-shot demise of this sunshine legislation and its eco-system run in conjunction with similar legislations like Right to Service Act because the private units are not held accountable. Entities providing Public Services being essential for the citizens should be included in the definition of the 'Public Authority' by bringing in a state-specific amendment of the RTI Act which is a concurrent list subject.
16) In all of his previous cases information and documents have been denied on the grounds of DISCOMs not being a Public Authority under the RTI Act.
Page 46 of 68Post hearing, Complainant/Appellant has filed a written submission dated 26.11.2024 in support of his arguments, which are taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below:
"पेयर-मेर! अपील (u/s. 124A) दे श Xोह क? (पावर &वभाग) (ROC) & (DERC) सह! जबाब के डोकूमै$ट नह!ं 3ाZत करा रहे है कृपया डोकूमै$ट 3ोवाइड कराये जाये. - Decision दे वे -
Ⓐ अपील DERC/138996/Dt. 26/11/24 क? सुनवायी दौरान मझ ु े सू० आयA ु त (CIC) सह! डोकूमे$ट दलाये जाबे (BSES & DVB) AT A JOINT VENTURE OF (BSES) & (DVB) Dt. 29/8/2005 का (GNCTD) With क8पनी Act 1956 (ROC) का सटi/फकेट दलाया जाबे B. Sh. चGवतH (SR. Manager) |यरू ! काड &वद जोईDनंग 29/8/2005 A JOINT VENTURE GOVT NCT Delhi दलाया जाबे ?
C. (BSES) OR (YAMUNA POWERLTD-DVB) GNCTD. JOINT VENTURE- दलावे D. (BSES) (DVB/ क8पनी का \बल /कस Authority से ले रह! है - AJ.R द! जाने - E. (DVB) म (BSES) /कस AUTHORITY से काय कर रह! है . ATR. द! जाने (DVB) का आजतक Dनजीकरण नह!ं हुआ है . AT.R. द! जाने (G) (Enclosed) NF क8पलौ$ड = 138996 at 26/11/24 म सभी डोकूमै$ट 99 दलाये जाने with N/FAAIDPCL/2015/304/F-18/702/of 17/3/17 (10) RSES & YAMUNA POWER LTD) थड पाटi है "
Mr. C K Roy, Joint Secretary/PIO, DERC, by inviting attention of the Commission towards the contents of his written submission stated that reply along with information as is available in their records has already been provided to the appellant. In addition to it, opportunity of inspection of relevant records was also afforded to the complainant/appellant on various occasions which he availed and took the documents as per his choice. He contended that complainant/appellant is a habitual disgruntled RTI applicant who has filed multiple RTI applications by seeking same/similar information which are unspecific, incoherent and more in the nature of seeking clarifications which do not conform to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Even as on date, the complainant/appellant started filing RTI applications in the name of his wife Page 47 of 68 Mrs. Santosh Ladwal seeking same information just to create additional burden and to waste the valuable time and resources of the Respondent Public Authority. As regards the contention raised by the complainant/appellant regarding alleged dual face/role of BYPL, the PIO, DERC claimed that their role is restricted only up to the issuing license to the authority after checking the requisite parameters fulfilled by the licensee, their office has no records of JV agreement of BSES and bid conditions, etc. as sought by the complainant/appellant. This factual position has already been intimated to the complainant/appellant time and again. Further, the issue of DISCOM being covered under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act is sub-judice before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 6735/2007 DERC vs CIC & Ors. This issue can only be resolved with the necessary amendments in concerned State statute by making BYPL and other companies accountable under the RTI Act because they are working for public services.
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SO/PIO, Power Department apprised the Commission that complainant/appellant has already approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi raising the same issue, however, his case was dismissed. Further, his multiple Appeals/Complaints with same subject which have already been adjudicated by the different benches of the CIC with the warning that RTI may not be used as a tool for ventilation of grievance, however, he did not pay any heed to such warnings and keeps on filing the frivolous RTI applications with baseless allegations to harass the Respondent Public Authority. He prayed the Commission to desist the complainant/appellant and to penalize him with penal cost. While summing up the arguments, he requested the Commission to grant time for filing a written submission enumerating the case details and background of the complainant/appellant, which was allowed by the bench.
Post hearing, a written submission dated 27.11.2024 issued by BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. has been filed by Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SO/PIO, Power Department in case File No. CIC/DOPWR/A/2022/159902, which is taken on record. Contents of the same are reproduced below for ready reference:
"Sub: Details of the Court Case filed by Sh. Ramlal Ladwal (Retired from BYPL) against his suspension and penalty.
xxx Page 48 of 68
1. This is in reference to your email dated 26.11.2024 whereby BSES Yamuna Power Ltd has been requested to provide the details of the Court Case filed by Sh. Ramlal Ladwal (Retired from BYPL) against his suspension and penalty imposed with current status in any Court of Law, with the copy of orders of Hon'ble Court
2. In this regard, it is respectfully stated that-
1) Sh Ram Lal Ladwal was an erstwhile DVB employee and his service conditions are regulated under FR/SR. Accordingly the provisions of government rules, regulations and CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 are applicable to him
ii) Sh. Ladwal had joined the erstwhile Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (DESU) we.f. 18.11.1977 to the post of Wireman. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Electric Fitter w.e.f. 13.07.1982 il) Sh. Ladwal represented that he had passed ITI (Electrical) in 1987.
Accordingly, he was promoted to the post of Sr. Electric Fitter w.e.f. 14.02. 1989. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Foreman (Electrical) w.e.f. 22.04.1996.
(v) Sh Ladwal was involved in a vigilance case during the year 2005 in which he was placed under suspension and a charge sheet vide memorandum no VC-19- 20/BYPL/2005/632 dated 01.09 2005 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for major penalty proceedings was issued to him. In this vigilance case, a penalty of stoppage of four annual increments in the time scale of Rs 6500- 10900 for a period four years with cumulative effect was imposed upon him vide order dated 31.08.2006 and simultaneously his suspension was revoked.
vi) Being aggrieved by the aforesaid penalty. Sh. Ladwal preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority reduced the aforesaid penalty by one step and ordered that the award of penalty would be stoppage of three annual increments of pay in his time scale for a period of three years with cumulative effect vide order dated 30.11.2006. The Review Petition / Mercy Appeal preferred by Sh. Ladwal was also rejected by the Reviewing Authority vide order dated 04.10.2007.
vi) Sh. Lal Ladwal had filed a civil suit no. 211/2008 in Karkardooma Court seeking set aside of the penalty order but the Hon'ble court finding no merit in the case dismissed his case vide order dated 10.05.2011. An appeal was also preferred against the order of civil court but the same was also dismissed by the court vide order dated 06.02.2012. A review application was also filed by the workman but the same was also dismissed by the Hon'ble court vide order dated 02.07.2014. A copy of order dated 10.05.2011, order dated 06.02.2012 Page 49 of 68 and order dated 02.07.2014 is attached herewith Attachment A, Attachment-B and Attachment-C respectively
vii) On attaining the age of 60 years, Sh.Ladwal had superannuated from the services of the company w.e.f. 31.07.2012. After attaining superannuation, Sh. Ladwal is in receipt of pension from Pension Trust.
viii) Thereafter, the Sh. Ladwal raised a dispute under the Industrial Dispute Act in the year 2014 i.e. after a gap of about two years from the date of his superannuation. The matter is pending before the Hon'ble Labour Court vide POIT No. (ID) 1088/2016 and POIT No.(ID) 1089/2016. In both matters, Sh. Ladwal has prayed for reinstatement in service with continuity in service, consequential relief, along with full back wages and earned salary. He has further prayed to set aside the order dated 29.08.2005 (order of suspension).
ix) Sh Ladwal had filed an application that management no. 2 BSES Yamuna Power Ltd may be deleted. Accordingly upon his own submission, his application was allowed vide order dated 01.10.2022 and BYPL was directed to be deleted from the array of parties. A copy of order dated 01.10.2022 is attached herewith as Attachment-D.
x) Sh. Ladwal had already retired on 31.07.2012 from the services after attaining the age of superannuation per the rules and regulation and hence, no industrial dispute regarding reinstatement in service can be raised.
xi) The order of the suspension that is being sought to be assailed had culminated into a detailed disciplinary process whereby after the detailed independent/impartial inquiry. the charges were duly proved and established against Sh Ladwal. Accordingly, as per the applicable regulations/rules, appropriate/necessary orders with respect to the punishment were passed by the disciplinary authority which was modified by the Appellate Authority and thus the final order of punishment whereby the punishment of stoppage of three annual increment of pay in the time scale of three year with cumulative effect awarded vide order dated 30.11.2006 which has attained finality and the order of suspension had therefore merged with the final order. Sh. Ladwal had already assailed the final order by way of Civil Suit followed by an appeal before Appellate Court in which order were passed on 10.05.2011, 06.02.2012 and 02.07.2014 respectively."
Decision Page 50 of 68 The Commission has clubbed these 21 cases (Complaint and Second Appeals) of Shri Ram Lal Ladwal for cumulative disposal based on its previous decision in 61 cases of the same applicant which were disposed of earlier by different benches of the Commission (available in public domain and can be accessed online through http://dsscic.nic.in/cause-list-report-web/view-decision/1 -> type the name of the appellant in -> Applicant Name -> press submit).
The observations of the Commission in the different cases are squarely applicable to the facts of these cases as they emanate from similar subject matter and pertain to the same time period discussed therein. The averred decision is reproduced hereunder for reference:
In case File No. CIC/SCOFI/A/2018/141618 decided on 18.11.2029 it was held:
Dनणयः
6. सं9चका म उपल>ध तcय1 तथा सुनवाई के दौरान उभय प<1 वारा 3;तत ु क?
गयी दल!ल के आलोक म आयोग क? मा$यता है /क 3ाथH वारा वांDछत सच ू ना के संदभ म उ$ह यथो9चत जवाब 3े&षत कर दया गया है । उIलेखनीय है /क एक जन सच ू ना अ9धकार! संबं9धत 3ा9धकरण के Cरकाड म एक सामTी के Kप म उपल>ध सच ू ना ह! 3दान कर सकता है । 3ाथH वारा वांDछत सच ू ना न तो उ_चतम $यायालय से संबं9धत है और न ह! इस संदभ म कोई Cरकाड उ_चतम $यायालय म उपल>ध है । अतः 3;तत ु मामले म आयोग के ह;त<ेप क?
आव4यकता नह!ं है ।
In case File No. - CIC/CAGIN/A/2018/153347-BJ decided on 19.08.2018 and in case File No. - CIC/HCDEL/A/2018/161823-BJ, CIC/HCDEL/A/2019/100877-BJ decided on 13.03.2020 it was held:
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 as also the fact that the matter is presently sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in the matter.
Page 51 of 68For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
In case File No. CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/137415 CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/137414 CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/165042,CIC/DSESJ/A/2018/161824,CIC/DSESJ/A/2018/1 00878, CIC/DELRC/A/2018/159328/DERCM decided on 20.04.2020 it was held:
"...Decision: Upon perusal of facts on records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing as well as the counter submissions of the Respondent public authority, Commission observes that the Appellant is harping on the aspect of alleged corruption by the Delhi Government without any substantiating evidence/material. On the basis of a mere statement that the BSES does not possess a license and neither it has been registered, cannot be taken on record because the annexures appended with the counter submissions submitted by the PIO, Department of Power vide his letter dated 11.03.2020 clearly indicates otherwise. This cannot be disregarded by the Commission. Page 6 of 11 In view of the foregoing, Commission notes that available and relevant information has been provided to the Appellant in File Nos. CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/137415; CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/137414 and CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/165042. Hence, no further intervention is required in the instant matter. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off.
In view of the foregoing, Commission notes that available and relevant information has been provided to the Appellant in File Nos. CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/137415; CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/137414 and CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/165042. Hence, no further intervention is required in the instant matter xxx xxx xxx Decision: It is noted from perusal of records that the PIO could have outrightly denied the that the information sought at para 1, 2 and 3 of the instant RTI application is outside the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act instead of invoking Rule 7(vi) of Delhi District Court (Right to Information Rules), 2008. In view of the foregoing, Commission is not in a position to give any relief to the Appellant.
xxx xxx xxx Decision: Upon perusal of records, Commission observes that the information sought by the Appellant is pertaining to grievances against BSES, Delhi Government, DERC and its activities, which the Respondent public authority being a judicial body has no power to look into. Reply of the PIO in response to the instant RTI Application is sufficient. Hence, the instant Appeal is disposed off with no further directions.Page 52 of 68
xxx xxx xxx Decision: Upon perusal of records and on the basis of the proceedings during the hearing, Commission observes that the Appellant is in the habit of filing multiple RTI Applications which are usually not in consonance with Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Further, as regards the misuse of RTI Act Commission also observes that the Appellant has grossly misconceived the idea of exercising his 'Right to Information' as being absolute and unconditional. It is rather unfortunate that even the best of intentions have to not only stand the test of procedural requirements and fetters laid down in the RTI Act but also stand the test of practicality. However, adverting to cases such as these where the intention of the RTI Applicant is to harass and pressurize the public authorities; the notion of misuse of RTI Act well recognized by superior courts through various judgments is relevant such as the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) & anr. v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay and others [(2011) 8 SCC 497] stating that:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under clause (b) of section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption. But in regard to other information,(that is information other than those enumerated in section 4(1)(b) and (c) of the Act), equal importance and emphasis are given to other public interests (like confidentiality of sensitive information, fidelity and fiduciary relationships, efficient operation of governments, etc.). Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under RTI Act for disclosure of all and sundry information (unrelated to transparency and accountability in the functioning of public authorities and eradication of corruption) would be counter-productive as it will adversely affect the efficiency of the administration and result in the executive getting bogged down with the non- productive work of collecting and furnishing information. The Act should not be allowed to be misused or abused, to become a tool to obstruct the national development and integration, or to destroy the peace, tranquility and harmony among its citizens. Nor should it be converted into a tool of oppression or intimidation of honest officials striving to do their duty. The nation does not want a scenario where 75% of the staff of public authorities spends 75% of their time in collecting and furnishing information to applicants instead of discharging their Page 53 of 68 regular duties. The threat of penalties under the RTI Act and the pressure of the authorities under the RTI Act should not lead to employees of a public authorities prioritising 'information furnishing', at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
Similarly, in ICAI v. Shaunak H. Satya, (2011) 8 SCC 781 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:- "39. We however agree that it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Sections 4(1)(b) and (c) and other information which may not have a bearing on accountability or reducing corruption. The competent authorities under the RTI Act will have to maintain a proper balance so that while achieving transparency, the demand for information does not reach unmanageable proportions affecting other public interests, which include efficient operation of public authorities and the Government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use of limited fiscal resources." Hence, the Appellant is cautioned that repeated and mechanical filing of RTI Applications, thereby flooding the Respondent with myriad queries, only detracts from the spirit of the RTI Act and unnecessarily burdens the public authority. The instant Appeal is disposed off with no further directions...."
In case File No. CIC/NCFSC/A/2020/110500 decided on 15.09.2021 it was held:
Decision: In furtherance of the observations made during the hearing, the Commission notes that the application touted to be the RTI Application is an application filed under Order 1 of Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code in connection with a certain suit filed by the Appellant before the Karkardooma District Court.
The Appellant has ambiguously and extensively overwritten on the said application and sent the same to the Respondent office mentioning the IPO reference number deeming it as a RTI Application. Neither any information has been sought for therein as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act nor does the subject matter even remotely concern NCSC. In view of the foregoing observations, the instant Appeal is not maintainable.
In case File No. CIC/DELTL/A/2020/119314 decided on 22.11.2021 it was held:Page 54 of 68
"...3;तत ु संदभ म एक अ$य उIलेखनीय तcय यह है /क 2 (च) के 3ावधान1 के अनुसार एक जन सूचना अ9धक सामTी के Kप म उपल>ध सच ू ना ह! 3दान कर सकता है के अंतगत के$X!य सच ू ना आयोग &वतीय अपील!य अ9धक से सच ू ना 3दान करवाना माV है । /कसी अ$य शकायत का समाधान आयोग के कयछे V से परे है ..."
In case File No. CIC/DOPWR/A/2020/119372 decided on 22.11.2021 it was held:
"..Dनणय 3ाथH वारा वांDछत सच ू ना का पर!<ण करने से यह ;पUट है /क 3ाथH ने 3;तत ु आवेद न के मा2यम से बीएसईएस कंपनी वारा जनता के पैस1 को लूट कर अपने खाते म लेने के तर!क1, &वशेषकर जब/क कंपनीके पास न लाईसस है और न ह! यह पंजीकृत है , के संबंध म सूचना क? मांग क? है । आयोग क? राय म 3ाथH वारा वांDछत सूचना, सच ू ना का अ9धकार अ9धDनयम क? धारा 2 (च) म पCरभा&षत 'सच ू ना' क? पCरभाषा म नह!ं आता है । बहरहाल, 3ाथH के 3;तत ु आवेद न के संद भ म उ$ह दनांक 12.05.2020 के पV के मा2यम से तcयाMमक जानकार! 3दान कर द! गयी है । 3;तुत संद भ म उIलेखनीय तcय यह है /क सच ू ना का अ9धकार अ9धDनयम क? धारा 2 (च) के 3ावधान1 के अनस ु ार एक जन सच ू ना अ9धकार! संबं9धत 3ा9धकरण के Cरकाड म एक सामTी के Kप म उपल>ध सच ू ना ह! 3दान कर सकता है । अतः 3;तत ु संद भ म आयोग के ह;त<ेप क? आव4यकता नह!ं है ।..."
In case File No. CIC/DERCM/A/2020/129322, CIC/MOCAF/A/2020/130168- GNCTD decided on 22.11.2021 and 10.05.2022 it was held:
"..Dनणय 3ाथH वारा वांDछत सूचना का पर!<ण करने से यह ;पUट है /क 3ाथH ने 3;तत ु आवेदन के मा2यम से बीएसईएस कंपनी वारा जनता के पैस1 को लूट कर अपने खाते म लेने के तर!क1, &वशेषकर जब/क कंपनी के पास न लाईसस है और न ह! यह पंजीकृत है , के संबंध म सूचना क? मांग क? है । आयोग क?
राय म 3ाथH ू ना, सच
वारा वांDछत सच ू ना का अ9धकार अ9धDनयम क? धारा 2
(च) म पCरभा&षत 'सूचना' क? पCरभाषा म नह!ं आता है । बहरहाल, 3ाथH के ु आवेदन के संदभ म उ$ह दनांक 12.05.2020 के पV के मा2यम से 3;तत तcयाMमक जानकार! 3दान कर द! गयी है । 3;तत ु संदभ म उIलेखनीय तcय यह है /क सूचना का अ9धकार अ9धDनयम क? धारा 2 (च) के 3ावधान1 के Page 55 of 68 अनस ु ार एक जन सूचना अ9धकार! संबं9धत 3ा9धकरण के Cरकाड म एक सामTी के Kप म उपल>ध सच ू ना ह! 3दान कर सकता है । अतः 3;तत ु संदभ म आयोग के ह;त<ेप क? आव4यकता नह!ं है ।..."
In case File Nos. CIC/DOPWR/A/2020/127158 CIC/DERCM/A/2020/139256 CIC/DELTL/A/2020/139255 decided on 10.01.2022 it was held:
"...Dनणय आयोग के अ भलेख1 का पर!<ण करने से यह ;पUट है /क 3ाथH ने इससे पव ू भी 3;तत ु मामले म उठाये गए मु दे से संबं9धत 4 &वतीय अपील, CIC/DERCM/A/2020/129322, CIC/DOPWR/A/2020/119372, CIC/DERCM/A/2020/119313 तथा CIC/DELTL/A/2020/119314 आयोग म संि;थत /कया था, िजसक? सुनवाई के प4चात आयोग क? 3;तत ु पीठ के दनांक
22. 11.2021 के आदे श वारा Dन;तारण भी /कया है । तदन$तर, 3ाथH वारा वांDछत सच ू ना का पर!<ण करने से यह ;पUट नह!ं होता है /क 3ाथH व;तत ु ः कौन-सी &व शUट सूचना क? मांग कर रहे हR, जो उ$ह पहले 3ाZत नह!ं हुई है । 3;तत ु वाद क? सुनवाई के दौरान भी 3ाथH ने आयोग के सम< यह! दल!ल ु /कया है /क बीएसईएस एक Dनजी कंपनी है , /फर /कस आधार पर 3;तत 3ा9धकरण उसे एक सरकार! कंपनी बता रहा है । यहां यह तcय उIलेखनीय है ू ना का अ9धकार अ9धDनयम क? धारा 2 (च) के 3ावधान1 के अंतगत एक /क सच ू ना अ9धकार!, संबं9धत 3ा9धकरण के Cरकाड म एक सामTी के Kप म जन सच ू ना ह! 3दान कर सकता है । तदन$तर, सच उपल>ध सच ू ना का अ9धकार अ9धDनयम के अंतगत के$X!य सूचना आयोग &वतीय अपील!य अ9धकरण है , िजसका काय संबं9धत 3ा9धकरण से सच ू ना 3दान करवाना माV है । /कसी अ$य शकायत का समाधान आयोग के काय<ेV से परे है । 3ाथH क? दIल! Wां;को ल मटे ड, &व यत ु &वभाग, दIल! सरकार अथवा डीईआरसी से कोई शकायत है , 3ाथH 3;तत ु संदभ म सम9ु चत फोरम म शकायत दाQखल कर यथो9चत उपचार 3ाZत कर सकते हR। आयोग क? राय म 3ाथH को वांDछत सच ू ना के संदभ म Cरकाड म उपल>ध और 3दान /कये जाने यो]य सच ू ना 3दान कर द! गयी है ।
अतः 3;तत ु मामल1 म आयोग के ह;त<ेप क? आव4यकता नह!ं है ।"
In case File No. CIC/CBRUI/A/2020/126063 decided on 24.12.2021 it was held:
"...Decision:Page 56 of 68
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record observes that the information sought for in the RTI Application is largely based on cumbersome and incoherent queries not specifically conforming to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, yet the CPIO has attempted to adequately suffice the queries as per the provisions of the RTI Act."
In case File No. CIC/HCDEL/A/2020/105404, CIC/HCDEL/A/2021/117926 decided on 14.01.2022 & 18.07.2023, it was held:
"...Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
In case File No. CIC/DERCM/A/2021/117929 decided on 09.03.2022 it was held:
" नणय सं9चका म उपल>ध तcय1 तथा दौरान उभय प<1 वारा 3;तत ु क? गयी दातील के आलोक म यह ;पUट है /क 3ाथH के 3;तुत आवेदन के संदभ म जन सूचना अ9धकार!, डीईआरसी ने दनांक 06.02.2020 के पV के मा2यम से 3ाथH को सच ू ना /जयाब 3े&षत /कया है । 3;तत ु संदभ म उालेखनीय है /क सूचना का अ9धकार अ9धDनयम क? बारा 2 (च) के 3ावधान1 के अंतगत एक जन सच ू ना अ9धकार!, संबं9धत 3ा9धकरण के Cरकाड म एक सामTी के Kप म उपल>ध सच ू ना ह! 3दान कर सकता है और जी सूचना 3ा9धकरण के वेबसाईट पर लोक 3<ेV म उपल>ध है . उसे सच ू ना का अ9धकार अ9धDनयम के अंतगत नह!ं मानी जा सकती है , जैसा /क दIल! उ_च $यायालय ने मी Cरट या9चका संrया 11271/2009 म दनांक 01.06.2012 को दये गए आदे श म यह अ9धकां9थत /कया है /क एक बार सच ू ना जब लोक 3<ेV और वेबसाईट पर उपल>ध करा द! जाती है . यह सच ू ना उस लोक 3ा9धकार! वारा भाCरत अथवा उसके DनयंVणामीन नह!ं होगी और इस 3कार सच ू ना का अ9धकार अ9धDनयम के अंतगत सल ु म नह!ं होगी।
3ाथH के 3Dतवेदन म उिIलQखत तcय1 का अवलोकन करने से यह ;पUट है /क 3ाथH ने अपने 3Dतवेदन म जन सच ू ना अ9धकार! वारा 3दान क? गयी सूचना के &वp ध कोई &व शUट शकायत नह!ं क? है बिIक 3ा9धकरण म फैले nUटाचार Page 57 of 68 का हवाला दया है । यहां यह उIलेख 3ासं9गक होगा /क सच ू ना का अ9धकार अ9धDनयम के अंतगत के$X!य सच ू ना आयोग &वतीय अपील!य अ भकरण है , िजसका काय संबं9धत 3ा9धकरण से सच ू ना 3दान करवाना माV है । /कसी अ$य शकायत का समाधान आयोग के काय<ेV से परे है । आयोग के अ भलेख1 का पर!<ण करने से यह भी ;पUट हुआ है /क लगभग समान सूचना क? मांग करते हुए 3ाथH वारा दाQखल अ$य &वतीय अपील1 का Dन;तारण भी आयोग क? 3;ततु पीठ के वारा /कया गया है । उपरोAत तcय1 के आलोक म 3;तत ु मामाले म 3Dतवाद! प< को कोई मी Dनद+ श जार! /कये जाने क? आव4यकता नह!ं है ।"
In case File No. CIC/DELTL/A/2021/117925, CIC/DELTL/A/2021/117924 decided on 09.03.2022 it was held:
"...Dनणय सं9चका म उपल>ध तcय1 तथा सुनवाई के दौरान उभय प<1 वारा 3;तत ु क?
गयी दल!ल के आलोक म यह ;पUट है /क 3ाथH के 3;तत ु आवेदन के संदभ म जन सूचना अ9धकार!, दIल! Wां;को ल० ने दनांक 26.05.2020 के पV के मा2यम से 3ाथH को यह स9ू चत /कया है /क 3ाथH वांDछत सच ू ना ;पUट कर, Aय1/क 3ाथH वारा वांDछत सूचना ;पUट नह!ं है । 3ाथH के 3Dतवेदन म उिIलQखत तcय1 का अवलोकन करने से यह ;पUट है /क 3ाथH ने अपने 3Dतवेदन म जन सच ू ना अ9धकार! वारा 3दान क? गयी सच ू ना / जवाब के &वK ध कोई &व शUट शकायत नह!ं क? है और न ह! यह ;पUट /कया है /क उ$ह कौन-सी &व शUट सच ू ना अपे•<त है । 3;तत ु संदभ म उIलेखनीय है /क ू ना का अ9धकार अ9धDनयम क? धारा 2 (च) के 3ावधान1 के अंतगत एक जन सच ू ना अ9धकार!, संबं9धत 3ा9धकरण के Cरकाड म एक सामTी के Kप म सच ू ना ह! 3दान कर सकता है । तदन$तर, सच उपल>ध सच ू ना का अ9धकार अ9धDनयम के अंतगत के$X!य सूचना आयोग &वतीय अपील!य अ9धकरण है , िजसका काय संबं9धत 3ा9धकरण से सच ू ना 3दान करवाना माV है । /कसी अ$य शकायत का समाधान आयोग के काय<ेV से परे है । उपरोAत तcय1 के आलोक म 3;तत ु मामले म 3Dतवाद! प< को कोई भी Dनद+ श जार! /कये जाने क? आव4यकता नह!ं है ।"
In case File No. CIC/DOPWR/A/2021/127554 decided on 09.03.2022 it was held:
Page 58 of 68"...Dनणय सं9चका म उपल>ध तcय1 तथा सुनवाई के दौरान उभय प<1 वारा 3;तत ु क?
गयी दल!ल के आलोक म यह ;पUट है /क 3ाथH के 3;तत ु आवेदन के संदभ म जन सूचना अ9धकार!, &व यत ु &वभाग ने दनांक 14.10.2020 के पV के मा2यम से 3ाथH को यह सू9चत /कया /क 3ाथH वारा वांDछत सच ू ना `ड;कॉम (बीवाईपीएल) से संबं9धत है और `ड;कॉम पर आरट!आई अ9धDनयम के लागू होने के संबंध म उ_च $यायालय वारा ;थगनादे श (Cरट या9चका संrया 542/2007, 543/2007 और 544/2007) 3दान /कया गया है । अतः 3ाथH का आवेदन `ड;कॉम को अंतCरत नह!ं /कया जा सकता है । 3;तत ु संदभ म उIलेखनीय है /क सच ू ना का अ9धकार अ9धDनयम क? धारा 2 (च) के 3ावधान1 के अंतगत एक जन सच ू ना अ9धकार!, संबं9धत 3ा9धकरण के Cरकाड म एक सामTी के Kप म उपल>ध सच ू ना ह! 3दान कर सकता है ।
3ाथH के 3Dतवेदन म उिIलQखत तcय1 का अवलोकन करने से यह ;पUट है /क 3ाथH ने अपने 3Dतवेदन म जन सच ू ना अ9धकार! वारा 3दान क? गयी सूचना के &वK ध कोई &व शUट शकायत नह!ं क? है , बिIक आयोग को यह सू9चत /कया है /क 3ाथH व;तत ु ः डीवीबी के कमचार! हR और डीवीबी का कभी &वघटन हुआ ह! नह!ं है । इसके अDतCरAत 3ाथH ने अपने 3Dतवेदन म बीएसईएस का पावर राUWपDत जी को स€पने का आTह /कया है । यहां यह उIलेख 3ासं9गक होगा /क सच ू ना का अ9धकार अ9धDनयम के अंतगत के$X!य सूचना आयोग &वतीय अपील!य अ9धकरण है . िजसका काय संबं9धत 3ा9धकरण से सच ू ना 3दान करवाना माV है । /कसी अ$य शकायत का समाधान आयोग के काय<ेV से परे है । आयोग के अ भलेख1 का पर!<ण करने से यह भी ;पUट हुआ है /क लगभग समान सचू ना क? मांग करते हुए 3ाथH वारा दाQखल अ$य &वतीय अपील1 का Dन;तारण भी आयोग क? 3;तत ु पीठ के वारा /कया है । उपरोAत तcय1 के आलोक म 3;तत ु मामले म 3Dतवाद! प< को कोई भी Dनद+ श जार! /कये जाने क? आव4यकता नह!ं है ।"
In case File No. CIC/DOPWR/A/2021/117923 decided on 09.03.2022 it was held:
"...Dनणय सं9चका म उपल>ध तcय1 तथा सुनवाई के दौरान उभय प<1 वारा 3;तत ु क?
गयी दल!ल के आलोक म यह ;पUट है /क 3ाथH के 3;तत ु आवेदन के संदभ म ू ना अ9धकार!, &व यत जन सच ु &वभाग ने दनांक 10.08.2020 के पV के मा2यम Page 59 of 68 से 3ाथH को \बंदव ु ार सच ू ना 3े&षत क? है , िजसम कुछ सच ू ना पहले 3दान /कये जाने तथा कुछ सच ू ना के लए 3ाथH का आवेदन डीईआरसी और डीपीसीएल को अंतCरत करने के तcय से अवगत कराया गया था। साथ ह! साथ `ड;कॉम से संबं9धत सच ू ना के संदभ म उसपर आरट!आई अ9धDनयम के लागू होने के संबंध म उ_च $यायालय वारा ;थगनादे श (Cरट या9चका संrया 542/2007, 543/2007 और 544/2007) जार! /कये जाने के तcय से अवगत कराते हुए 3ाथH का आवेदन उसे अंतCरत नह!ं /कए जाने के तcय से अवगत कराया गया है । 3;तत ु ू ना का अ9धकार अ9धDनयम क? धारा 2 (च) के संदभ म उIलेखनीय है /क सच ू ना अ9धकार!, संबं9धत 3ा9धकरण के Cरकाड म 3ावधान1 के अंतगत एक जन सच एक सामTी के Kप म उपल>ध सच ू ना ह! 3दान कर सकता है । ISS 3ाथH के 3Dतवेदन म उिIलQखत तcय1 का अवलोकन करने से यह ;पUट है /क 3ाथH ने अपने 3Dतवेदन म जन सच ू ना अ9धकार! वारा 3दान क? गयी सूचना के &वK ध कोई &व शUट शकायत नह!ं क? है , बिIक आयोग को यह स9ू चत /कया है /क 3ाथH व;तत ु ः डीवीबी के कमचार! है और डीबीबी का कभी &वघटन हुआ ह! नह!ं है । इसके अDतCरAत 3ाथH ने अपने 3Dतवेदन म बीएसईएस का पावर राUWपDत जी को स€पने का आTह /कया है तथा साथ-ह!-साथ 3ा9धकरण म क9थत तौर पर फैले nUटाचार का हवाला दया है । यहां यह उIलेख 3ासं9गक होगा /क सच ू ना का अ9धकार अ9धDनयम के अंतगत के$X!य सूचना आयोग &वतीय अपील!य अ9धकरण है , िजसका काय संबं9धत 3ा9धकरण से सच ू ना 3दान करवाना माV है । /कसी अ$य शकायत का समाधान आयोग के काय<ेV से परे है । आयोग के अ भलेख1 का पर!<ण करने से यह भी ;पUट हुआ है /क लगभग समान सच ू ना क? मांग करते हुए 3ाथH वारा दाQखल अ$य &वतीय अपील1 का Dन;तारण भी आयोग क? 3;तत ु पीठ के वारा /कया है । उपरोAत तcय1 के आलोक म 3;तत ु मामले म 3Dतवाद! प< को कोई भी Dनद+ श जार! /कये जाने क? आव4यकता नह!ं है ।"
In case File No. CIC/POWER/A/2021/117927-UM, CIC/DELTL/A/2021/130043-UM decided on 27.09.2022 and 10.08.2022, it was held:
"....DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission directs the Respondent to re-examine the RTI application and furnish a Suitable, precise and an updated revised reply to the Appellant. The Commission further directs the CPIO if the information sought is not available Page 60 of 68 then he should furnish an affidavit to the commission, explaining the factual position regarding the non-availability of the information, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. A copy of the affidavit shall also be provided to the Appellant. In the case of the filing a wrong affidavit the Appellant will have the remedy to approach the court of law under the offence of perjury and contempt of the Commission."
In case File No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/117921 decided on 18.07.2022 it was held:
"...Decision: Perusal of the records of this case reveals that information sought by the Appellant had been duly furnished by the Respondent from available official records, in terms of the mandate of the RTI Act. Though reply dated 30.07.2020 whereby information available on record with the public authority, had not been enclosed with the Second Appeal by the Appellant, but the Respondent brought it on record during hearing. Another appeal [CIC/CBRUI/A/2020/126063] had arisen out of the same RTI application wherein the Respondent in question was the CBI. The said appeal had been adjudicated by a coordinate Bench holding that CPIO, CBI had adequately answered the queries raised by the Appellant. In the light of the foregoing position, it is noted that information available on record with the public authority as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act had been furnished to the Appellant. Thus no cause of action survives for further adjudication of this appeal under the RTI Act."
In case File No. CIC/HCDEL/A/2021/123675 CIC/HCDEL/A/2021/127553 decided on 29.08.2022, it was held:
"Decision: Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. The Commission also notes that similar issues have been heard and adjudicated by the Commission in CIC/HCDEL/A/2020/105404 decided on 14.01.2022; CIC/HCDEL/A/2021/117926 decided on 18.07.2022 and CIC/HCDEL/A/2021/130046 decided on 19.07.2022. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly."Page 61 of 68
In case File No. CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/124294 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/128504 CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/128503 and CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/152875 decided on 29.08.2022 it was held:
"...Decision: Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent. The Commission also notes that similar issues have been heard and adjudicated by this bench of the Commission in CIC/DEPOL/A/2020/129182 decided on 16.02.2022 and CIC/DEPOL/A/2021/117921 decided on 18.07.2022. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter. For redressal of his grievance, the Appellant is advised to approach an appropriate forum. With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly."
In case File No. CIC/DOPWR/A/2021/152871-UM decided on 09.09.2022, it was held:
"....Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission observes that complete information has not been furnished and therefore directs the CPIO to furnish correct information to the Appellant strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. The Respondent may redact the personal details of the third parties.
If the CPIO is not able to give the point wise and complete information he should furnish an affidavit to the Commission, explaining the factual position regarding the non-availability or confidentiality of the Information to the Appellant, strictly in accordance with the spirit of transparency and accountability as enshrined in the RTI Act, 2005 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order under the intimation to the Commission. In the case of the CPIO filing a wrong affidavit, the Appellant will have the remedy to approach the court of law under the offence of perjury and contempt of the Commission.
The CPIO is also directed to take into account a previous order of the Commission regarding the High court stay taken by a DISCOM from the ambit of the RTI Act in the light of the Supreme Court order which came later and directed that a stay order granted by a court can't be permanent Page 62 of 68 and should be reviewed every six months. The Appeal stands disposed accordingly."
In case File No. CIC/DOPWR/A/2022/135677, CIC/DOPWR/A/2022/145676 and CIC/DOPWR/A/2022/142977-UM decided on 13.01.2023, it was held:
"...DECISION: Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent and on the perusal of the documents on record, the Commission observes that an apt reply has been furnished to the Appellant. Therefore, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
Further the Commission observes that "Even a single repetition of RTI application would demand the valuable time of the public authority, first appellate authority and if it also reaches second appeal, that of the Commission, which time can be spent to hear another appeal of a needy person or perform other public duty. Every repetition of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction to flow of information and defeats the purpose of RTI Act."
Therefore the Appellant is cautioned to desist from filing multiple applications on the same subject as it results in disproportionate diversion of the public resources and unnecessarily burdens the public authority."
In case File No. CIC/POWER/A/2022/103083 decided on 29.12.2022 it was held:
"...Decision:
The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record that the contents of the RTI Application are extremely incoherent and ambiguous seeking to raise a speculative query about the legality of the premises occupied by BSES. This bench also recalls that the same BSES issue was earlier heard vide cases filed by the Appellant against CBI and National Commission for Scheduled Castes, wherein similar observations were made regarding the contents of the RTI Applications filed by him. The Appellant shall note that outstretching the interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act to include deductions and inferences to be drawn by the CPIO is unwarranted as it casts immense pressure on the CPIOs to ensure that they provide the correct deduction/inference to avoid being subject to penal provisions under the RTI Act.
............
Having observed as above and in view of the submissions tendered by the CPIO no action is warranted in the matter. However, the CPIO is directed to send a copy of the written submissions dated 07.10.2022 to the Appellant within 2 days of the receipt of this order."Page 63 of 68
In case File No. CIC/SBIND/A/2021/138105 decided on 13.01.2023 it was held:
"...Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought reasons as to the amount deducted annually from his account and other issues related thereto. The Commission observes that the respondent has given point wise reply/information to the appellant on his RTI application. The Commission further observes that query of the appellant is more in the nature of seeking explanation/ opinion/ advice/ clarification/ regarding the amount deducted from his account and sms service not being provided to him. The appellant is also aggrieved since the respondent did not provide him with the form for opening an account. The Commission observes that CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advice can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expect to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him. Further the grievance of not providing form to open account cannot be addressed through the RTI frame work..."
In case File No - CIC/GNCTD/A/2022/142930 decided on 29.05.2023 it was held:
"...DECISION: Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the appellant and after perusal of the documents available on record, the Commission finds that an appropriate reply as per the RTI Act, 2005 had been furnished by the Respondent and hence no further intervention by the Commission is required in the matter. For the redressal of his grievance, if any, the Appellant may approach an appropriate forum.
Furthermore, the Commission observes that the appellant has exhibited a pattern of repeatedly filing unfounded and deceitful complaints against public authorities, and has repeatedly appeared before the Central Information Commission with similar grievances, resulting in a gross waste of public resources and time. Despite the angularities in the appellant's second appeals the commission tried its best to give justice to the Appellant in keeping with the spirit of the RTI Law. But what he did on 02.12.2022 was inexplicable. On that day at 10 AM the Commission provided the appellant with an opportunity to examine all records related to the respondents in the presence of all relevant parties in an inspection in the Commission's office. However, the appellant failed to avail this Page 64 of 68 opportunity. There were over half dozen personnel from the respondent authority who had come with dozens of files for the inspection on this day following the Commission's order. But the lengthy exercise involving huge resources went waste on that day due to the appellant's absence without intimation. The Commission cannot put up with such irresponsible behaviour of the appellant, not the least after having heard repeated second appeals of the appellant with same pleas in the spirit of the RTI Law despite the fact some of his pleas were quite frivolous. Accordingly, Commission advises the appellant not to waste further time of the commission as well as the respondent authority. He is free to approach higher courts in the matter in case he feels he is not getting justice."
In case File No - CIC/DEPOL/A/2023/133562 decided on 29.07.2024 it was held:
"...Dनणय सं9चका म उपल>ध तcय1 तथा सुनवाई के दौरान उभय प<1 वारा 3;तत ु क?
गयी दल!ल के आलोक म यह ;पUट है /क 3ाथH के 3;तत ु आवेदन के संदभ म सीपीआईओ, दIल! पु लस, शाहदरा ने दनांक 14.10.2022 के पV के मा2यम से ु ार सूचना 3े&षत क?, िजसम 3ाथH को यह अवगत कराया गया था 3ाथH को \बंदव /क 34नगत शकायत पर जांच लं\बत है । तदन$तर, 3थम अपील!य आदे श के अनप ु ालन म 3ाथH को उनक? शकायत के संदभ म क? गयी जांच क? Cरपोट दनांक 26.07.2023 के पV के मा2यम से 3ाथH को 3े&षत कर द! गयी है ।
3;तत ु संदभ म यह उIलेख 3ासं9गक होगा /क सच ू ना का अ9धकार अ9धDनयम क? धारा 2 (च) के 3ावधान1 के अंतगत केवल वह सच ू ना, जो लोक 3ा9धकार! के पास उपल>ध और उसके वारा घाCरत अथवा उसके DनयंVणाधीन है . 3दान क? जा सकती है । एक जन सच ू ना अ9धकार! से यह अपे<ा नह!ं क? जा सकती है /क वह उस सूचना का Dनमाण करे , जो Cरकाड का ह;सा नह!ं है । उससे यह भी अपे•<त नह!ं है /क वह पCरकिIपत 34न1 का जवाब दे अथवा सच ू ना क? Oयाrया करे । आयोग क? राय म 3ाथH वारा वांDछत सच ू ना के संदभ म उ$ह Cरकाड म उपल>ध और 3दान /कये जाने यो]य तcयाMमक सच ू ना 3दान कर द! गयी है ।
अतः 3;तत ु मामले म आयोग के ह;त<ेप क? आव4यकता नह!ं है ।"
In case File No - CIC/PRSEC/A/2023/138990 decided on 27.11.2024, it was held:
Dनणय Page 65 of 68 सं9चका म उपल>ध तcय1 तथा सुनवाई के दौरान उभय प<1 वारा 3;तत ु क?
गयी दल!ल के आलोक म यह ;पUट है /क 3ाथH के 3;तत ु आवेदन के संदभ म सीपीआईओ, दIल! पु लस, शाहदरा ने दनांक 14.10.2022 के पV के मा2यम से 3ाथH को \बंदव ू ना 3े&षत क?, िजसम 3ाथH को यह अवगत कराया गया था ु ार सच /क 34नगत शकायत पर जांच लं\बत है । तदन$तर, 3थम अपील!य आदे श के अनप ु ालन म 3ाथH को उनक? शकायत के संदभ म क? गयी जांच क? Cरपोट दनांक 26.07.2023 के पV के मा2यम से 3ाथH को 3े&षत कर द! गयी है ।
3;तत ु संदभ म यह उIलेख 3ासं9गक होगा /क सच ू ना का अ9धकार अ9धDनयम क? धारा 2 (च) के 3ावधान1 के अंतगत केवल वह सच ू ना, जो लोक 3ा9धकार! के पास उपल>ध और उसके वारा घाCरत अथवा उसके DनयंVणाधीन है . 3दान क? जा सकती है । एक जन सच ू ना अ9धकार! से यह अपे<ा नह!ं क? जा सकती है ू ना का Dनमाण करे , जो Cरकाड का ह;सा नह!ं है । उससे यह भी /क वह उस सच अपे•<त नह!ं है /क वह पCरकिIपत 34न1 का जवाब दे अथवा सच ू ना क?
Oयाrया करे । आयोग क? राय म 3ाथH वारा वांDछत सच ू ना के संदभ म उ$ह Cरकाड म उपल>ध और 3दान /कये जाने यो]य तcयाMमक सच ू ना 3दान कर द! गयी है । अतः 3;तत ु मामले म आयोग के ह;त<ेप क? आव4यकता नह!ं है ।
In case File No - CIC/DEPOL/A/2023/138991 decided on 27.11.2024, it was held:
"...Dनणय सं9चका म उपल>ध तcय1 तथा सुनवाई के दौरान उभय प<1 वारा 3;तत ु क?
गयी दल!ल के आलोक म यह ;पUट है /क 3ाथH के 3;तj ु आवेदन के संदभ म सीपीआईओ, दIल! पु लस, शाहदरा िजला ने दनांक दनांक 08.06.2023 के पV के मा2यम से तथा तदन$तर 3थम अपील!य आदे श के अनप ु ालन म दनांक 07.08.2023 के पV के मा2यम से 3ाथH को अपे•<त सच ू ना 3े&षत क? है , िजसम 3ाथH को यह अवगत कराया गया है /क 3ाथH क? 34नगत शकायत पर जांच अभी लं\बत है । सुनवाई के दौरान 3Dतवाद! प< क? दल!ल है /क 34नगत मामले म जांच परू ! हो चक ु ? है और आयोग को आ4वासन दया है /क 3ाथH क? 34नगत शकायत पर क? गयी कारवाई से संबं9धत जांच Cरपोट क? 3Dत 3ाथH को 3े&षत कर द! जाएगी।
3;तत ु संदभ म यह उIलेख 3ासं9गक होगा /क सच ू ना का अ9धकार अ9धDनयम क? धारा 2 (च) के 3ावधान1 के अंतगत केवल यह सच ू ना, जो लोक 3ा9धकार! के पास उपल>ध और उसके वारा धाCरत अथवा उसके DनयंVणाधीन है , 3दान क? जा Page 66 of 68 सकती है । आयोग क? राय म 3ाथH वारा वांDछत सच ू ना के संदभ म उ$ह तMसमय Cरकाड के आधार पर अ9धDनयम के 3ावधान1 के अनुसार तcयाMमक सच ू ना / जवाब 3े&षत कर दया गया है ।"
In case File No - CIC/HCDEL/A/2023/146166 decided on 27.11.2024, it was held:
"... Dनणय सं9चका म उपल>ध तcय1 तथा सुनवाई के दौरान उभय प<1 वारा 3;तत ु क?
गयी दल!ल के आलोक म यह ;पUट है /क 3ाथH के 3;तत ु आवेदन के संदभ म पीआईओ, दIल! उ_च $यायालय ने दनांक दनांक 14.09.2022 एवं दनांक 12.10.2022 के पV के मा2यम से संबं9धत सच ू ना 3ाथH को 3े&षत कर द! है, िजसम 3ाथH के 34नगत शकायत के संदभ म क? गयी कारवाई क? सच ू ना 3ाथH को 3े&षत कर द! गयी है । तदन$तर, पीआईओ, िजला एवं सV $यायालय, कड़कड़डूमा के लQखत 3Dतवेदन के अनस ु ार 3ाथH को संबं9धत सच ू ना दनांक 16.09.2022 के पV के मा2यम से 3े&षत क? गयी है । 3;तत ु संदभ म यह उIलेख 3ासं9गक होगा /क सच ू ना का अ9धकार अ9धDनयम क? धारा 2(च) के 3ावधान1 के अंतगत केवल वह सच ू ना, जो लोक 3ा9धकार! के पास उपल>ध और उसके वारा धाCरत अथवा उसके DनयंVणाधीन है . 3दान क? जा सकती है । एक जन सच ू ना अ9धकार! से यह अपे<ा नह!ं क? जा सकती है /क ू ना का Dनमाण करे , जो Cरकाड का ह;सा नह!ं है । आयोग क? राय म वह उस सच 3ाथH वारा वांDछत सूचना के संदभ म 3ाथH को पीआईओ, दIल! उ_च $यायालय तथा िजला एवं सV $यायालय, कड़कड़डूमा ने Cरकाड म उपल>ध और 3दान /कए जाने यो]य संबं9धत सूचना 3े&षत कर द! गयी है । अतः 3;तत ु संदभ म आयोग के ह;त<ेप क? आव4यकता नह!ं है ।
बहरहाल, आयोग पीआईओ, िजला एवं सV $यायालय, कड़कड़डूमा को यह Dनद+ श ु आदे श क? 3ािZत से 15 दन1 के अंदर आयोग को 3े&षत दे ता है /क 3;तत दनांक 20.11.2024 के अपने लQखत 3Dतवेदन क? एक 3Dत संल]नक1 स हत 3ाथH को 3े&षत कर। आयोग पीआईओ को यह भी Dनद+ श दे ता है /क भ&वUय म आयोग वारा जार! सुनवाई नो टस के संदभ म सुनवाई के दौरान आयोग म उपि;थत होना सDु नि4चत कर अ$यथा उनके &वK ध Dनयमानस ु ार यथाउपयA ु त कारवाई क? जा सकती है ।"Page 67 of 68
As for the grievances raised by the Complainant/Appellant, he is advised to approach appropriate forum, since the Commission has no jurisdiction for resolving grievances.
Nonetheless, in view of the averments and submissions of the Complainant/Appellant, it appears to be a case of miscarriage of justice. However, since there is an interim injunction granted in the WP (C) No. 542/2007 and Others by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, this Commission cannot pass any order in this bunch of cases till the final verdict of the Hon'ble High Court. However, considering the complainant/appellant's advance age and ill health, he is granted liberty to approach this Commission for revival of his cases in the event of DISCOMs being adjudged as Public Authority.
With the above observations, the Complaint/Appeals are disposed of.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (िवनोद कुमार ितवारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#ािपत ित) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
THE FAA, DELHI ELECTRITY REGULATORY COMMISSION, VINIYAMAK BHAWAN, SHIVALIK, NEAR MALVIYA NAGAR, NEW DELHI - 110017 Copy To:
The FAA, Department of Power, GNCTD, 8th Level, B Wing, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi - 110002 Page 68 of 68 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)