Central Information Commission
Akshay Kumar Malhotra vs District Session Judge on 29 October, 2019
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईददल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DELJB/A/2018/113907
CIC/DELJB/C/2018/113897
CIC/DELRC/C/2018/145468/DERCM
CIC/DELRC/A/2018/147509/DERCM
CIC/PWDDL/A/2018/147522
CIC/GNCTD/C/2018/156283
CIC/GNCTD/A/2018/156206
CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/170637
CIC/ADDDM/A/2019/129902
CIC/ADDDM/C/2019/130033
CIC/DSESJ/A/2018/170615
Shri Akshay Kumar Malhotra ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
1.PIO/Superintending Engineer-(NW),
Delhi Jal Board(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through: Shri Mukesh Jindal - EE ...प्रनतवादीगण /Respondents
2. PIO/Dy. Secretary & PIO,
Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through: Shri C K Roy - Joint Secretary, Shri
Sanjay K Singh and Shri Ashok Gauba
3. PIO/Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum,
T.P.D.D.L Sub-Station Building
Through: Shri S K Mishra - Secretary
4. PIO/O/o. the E.E., Public Works Department
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through: Shri B P Joshi - Executive Engineer
5. PIO/Dy. Conservator of Forests-(West),
Forests Department (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through: Shri Saurabh Chandra on behalf Shri S
K Muan Guite
6. PIO/Sub-Divisional Magistrate-(HQ),
Revenue Department (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
Through: Shri S. Kumar - ASI, Shri Tarun
Kumar, Shri Tek Chand, Shri Jitender Kumar
7.PIO/Sub-Divisional Magistrate-(HQ),
O/o. the Addl. District Magistrate-(NW)
Page 1 of 9
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
8. PIO/O/o. the District Magistrate-(N)
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
9. PIO/Administrative Officer-(Judicial) & PIO,
O/o. the District & Session Judge-(NW)
Through: Shri Ravi Tripathi - Junior Judicial
Assistant; Shri Ashok Kumar - Judicial Assistant
Shri Lakmi Chand - Assistant Manager/PG Cell ;
Shri B K Aggarwal
Date of Hearing : 17.10.2019
Date of Decision : 29.10.2019
Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case No. RTI Filed on CPIO reply First appeal FAO
113907 26.12.2017 17.01.2018 29.01.2018 09.02.2018
113897 26.12.2017 17.01.2018 29.01.2018 09.02.2018
145468 13.03.2018 -- 11.04.2018 --
147509 13.03.2018 -- 11.04.2018 --
147522 18.03.2018 16.04.2018 21.09.2018 --
156283 14.05.2018 -- 13.07.2018 --
156206 14.05.2018 -- 13.07.2018 --
170637 06.08.2018 08.10.2018 06.09.2018 26.09.2018
129902 29.12.2018 -- 08.03.2019 15.04.2019
130033 29.12.2018 -- 08.03.2019 15.04.2019
170615 25.04.2018 05.07.2018 04.08.2018 --
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/DELJB/A/2018/113907 (2) CIC/DELJB/C/2018/113897 Appellant/Complainant filed the same RTI application dated 26.12.2017 seeking information on thirteen points regarding water leakage from the water pipe connected to the booster pump by the owner cum another consumer on the first floor flat No. 179 B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. In this regard, he sought following information:-
1. What action can be taken for 2 numbers of notices which was issued to Appellant and another Shri Achint Kumar.
2. Provide the status of his pending request DJB for removing the motor.
3. Give the entire sequence of flow of (i) his request (ii) non-enforcement of notice for both the owners.
4. Inform the action taken by each of the official.
5. Names of those public servants along with their designations.
6. Inform the procedures and responsibilities of Public Authority. Etc. Page 2 of 9 PIO/SE(NW) vide letter dated 17.01.2018 provided the information to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 29.01.2018. FAA vide order dated 09.02.2018 upheld the reply of PIO and disposed off the first appeal.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submissions have been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 07.10.2019 in respect of file No. CIC/DELJB/A/2018/113907 and file No. CIC/DELJB/C/2018/113897 reiterating the facts and submissions as mentioned in the above background of the cases.
Respondent has also submitted submissions dated 19.09.2019 contending that there is no leakage in the DJB pipeline, but the appellant's grievance of seepage in his bathroom is due to leakage of water from his neighbour's property, located on the floor above his property. This is being an individual flat owner's pipeline defect, does not fall within the purview of DJB and cannot be adjudicated as such. It has been further contended by the respondent that similar complaint regarding water leakage from joint of DJB Booster pump causing damage to appellant's ceiling has been adjudicated earlier vide decision dated 02.04.2018 by a predecessor bench of the CIC while deciding the cases number CIC/DELJB/A/2017/185662 and CIC/DELJB/A/2017/185663.
Decision:
In the light of the fact that the same issue of water leakage from the water pipe connected to booster pump by the owner cum another consumer on the first floor, between the same set of litigants, has already been dealt with vide decision dated 02.04.2018 by a predecessor bench of the CIC while deciding the cases number CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/185662 and CIC/DEPOL/A/2017/ 185663, the instant cases are hereby barred from further adjudication by operation of principle of constructive res judicata.
(3) CIC/DELRC/C/2018/145468/DERCM (4) CIC/DELRC/A/2018/147509/DERCM Appellant/Complainant filed the same RTI applications dated 13.03.2018 seeking information about his two complaints viz:-
1. CG No. 7648/04/17/SMB- order passed on 24.10.2017.
2. CG No. 7837/12/17/SMB- order passed on 15.02.2018.
In this regard, he sought the following information:-
(i) Opinion of the 3 members of the CGRF and reason for delay in communicating the CGRF order to the Appellant and various other related information.
Having not received any response from the PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 11.04.2018.
Page 3 of 9A Reply was received from the Secretary vide letter dated 11.05.2018 intimating the applicant that CGRF [Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum] does not fall under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submissions have been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 08.10.2019 in respect of file No.CIC/DELRC/C/2018/14568/DERCM and file No. CIC/DELRC/A/2018/147509/DERCM.
Both parties are present for hearing and Respondent reiterated their denial of information in the above cases citing the High Court decision dated 23.04.2009 in the case of DERC vs. CIC & Ors. claiming that the CGRF [Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum] are established by the electricity distribution companies (DISCOMS) under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and do not fall within the purview of the RTI Act, 2005.
On the other hand, the Appellant contends that the CGRF is a public authority as per a notification of the DERC draft regulation of 2011. The respondent informed that the said notification, referred by the appellant was annulled at the stage of draft and never saw the light of day, whereas a subsequent Regulation was finalised and was duly notified in the Delhi Gazette on 08.03.2018. The Section 5 of the DERC Regulation lays down that the CGRF shall be established by every Distribution Licensee, immediately on the grant of License, but not later than six months. The provision of section 9(2) of the same Regulation further lays down that the salary, allowances and other terms and conditions of service of Chairperson and members of the Forum-CGRF shall be laid down by the DERC, from time to time.
Decision Upon perusal of records referred to by the parties and placed before the Commission, and hearing averments of the parties, it is apparent that the real issue to be decided primarily in these two cases is, whether the CGRF is a public authority amenable to the RTI Act or governed by the provisions laid down by the DISCOMS. Considering the averments and documents placed on record by the parties, the provisions of the Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and the DERC Regulation notified as on 08th March 2018, it is evident that the CGRF is established by the electricity distribution licensee or DISCOMS and hence do not fall within the purview of the RTI Act, pending decision of the High Court on this issue. Hence, no information can be directed to be furnished in these cases.
The Commission finds it relevant to make a note at this juncture that the long standing pendency of over a decade in the High Court of the matters relating to the status of DISCOMS, making them not amenable to provisions of the RTI Act, has caused hardship to consumers/citizens in redressal of their grievances and/or in ensuring transparency in the operation of the DISCOMS.
(5) CIC/PWDDL/A/2018/147522 Page 4 of 9 Appellant filed the RTI application dated 18.03.2018 seeking information on eight points regarding exit points from service road to the main Ring Road, for stretch descending from Azadpur Flyover till Ashok Vihar crossing traffic intersection and the stretch just opposite to it. In this regard, he sought following information:-
1. Inform the policy/rules in respect of pre-requisite for deciding on making exit points from service road to main road. Provide the certified copy of the said policy/rule/notification.
2. Inform the norms which are considered and must be met with while /before giving approval/permission for carving out the exit points from service roads to main roads like Ring Road.
3. & 4:- Inform that, as per the records of public authority, how many exit points from service road to main ring road exists on both these two stretches and also the exact location of all such exit points, giving some locator/land mark near this point, are also to be informed. Etc. PIO vide letter dated 16.04.2018 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 21.04.2018. Feeling aggrieved on not receiving any response from the FAA, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 06.10.2019.
Both parties are present for the hearing. Respondent explains that the information concerned is held by Delhi Traffic Police since the only role assigned to the PWD with respect to roads is for the maintenance of the road in question. All the details relating to the stretch of road regarding the exit points etc. is decided by UTTIPAC.
Appellant states that UTTIPAC is a Committee headed by the LG but the exit points etc. are decided by the PWD and the Respondent is merely trying to digress from the real issue.
Decision:
Considering the conflicting averments of the parties, the Commission hereby directs the PIO, Shri B B Joshi to obtain accurate information from the relevant officials in the UTTIPAC and the Flyover Division, under RTI Act, and provide the same to the Appellant within two weeks of receipt of this order. Compliance report in this regard must be submitted by the respondent by 15.11.2019.
(6) CIC/GNCTD/C/2018/156283 (7) CIC/GNCTD/A/2018/156206 Appellant/Complainant filed the same RTI applications dated 14.05.2018 seeking information on seven points regarding an FIR No. 508/2016 registered on the basis of his complaint dated 22.05.2015 for illegal cutting/trimming of Page 5 of 9 tree branches of some of trees installed in North MCD park in front of Appellant's/ Complaint's home at Flat No. AC-179 A, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. In this regard, he sought following information:-
1. What is the status of the action taken by Delhi Police on the said FIR No. 508/2016.
2. What is the status of the case in the Judicial Court along with business conducted on each hearing and directions issued/orders of Hon'ble Court.
3. Inform the details of the counsel, who represented State (Forest Deptt. of GNCTD) in the case before Hon'ble Court. Etc. Having not received any response from the PIO, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 13.07.2018. Feeling aggrieved as neither the PIO nor the FAA furnished the information, hence the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Written submissions have been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 05.10.2019 in respect of file No. CIC/GNCTD/C/2018/156283 and file No. CIC/GNCTD/A/2018/156206.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the case reveal that neither the PIO nor the FAA have responded or adjudicated the RTI application. The PIO/Dy. Conservator of Forest- Shri Muan Guite has sent a letter dated 16.10.2019 through his authorised representative Shri Saurabh Chandra for attending the hearing, who is unable to assist in the hearing. The respondent has not submitted any substantial or relevant written submissions which can assist in the proceedings.
The hearing is thus vitiated due to the absence and complete silence of the PIO and accordingly, the Commission directs the PIO/Dy. Conservator of Forest- Shri Muan Guite to explain why no penal action should be initiated against him for not providing any reply/information so far in response to the RTI application dated 14.05.2018. The explanation from the PIO should reach the Commission by 11.11.2019 providing reasonable cause preventing disclosure of information by the respondent, failing which the Registry is directed to initiate appropriate action as per law.
The PIO/ Dy. Conservator of Forest- Shri Muan Guite is further directed to provide inspection of all relevant records with respect to the queries raised by the appellant. Compliance report upon completion of the inspection of records shall be submitted by the respondent/ PIO/ Dy. Conservator of Forest- Shri Muan Guite by 15.11.2019, failing which non-compliance action shall be initiated by the Registry.
(8) CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/170637 Page 6 of 9 Appellant filed the RTI application dated 06.08.2018 seeking information on twenty one points about his complaint regarding third party meter testing. In this respect he sought following information:-
1. Inform the status of his pending request.
2. Inform the normal lead time period within which such 3rd party meter testing request are acted upon.
3. Inform the reasons for delay in the action his pending request for 3 rd party meter testing.
4. Inform the number of requests lying pending for 3rd party meter testing. Etc. PIO/Asstt. Manager(T) vide letter dated 08.10.2018 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 06.09.2018. FAA vide order dated 26.09.2018 instructed the PIO, P.G. Cell to mention contact no. and designation on the RTI reply in future and provide the information in respect of Third Party meter testing and other available information to the Appellant within 15 days.
In compliance with FAO, a reply from Asstt. Manager(T)/PIO, P.G. Cell vide letter dated 16.11.2018 was furnished providing the information to the Appellant.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 06.10.2019. Both parties are present for hearing and the appellant alleges that though 5 replies have been provided by the Respondent, yet exact and accurate information has not been provided.
Decision:
Perusal of records of the file reveal that though response had been furnished by the respondent, the appellant is not satisfied with the same. Accordingly, with mutual consent of parties it is agreed that the respondent shall provide inspection of records to the appellant on 05.11.2019 at 12 pm. Compliance report in this regard shall be submitted before the Commission by 15.11.2019, failing which appropriate penal action shall be commenced against the respondent/PIO.
(9) CIC/ADDDM/A/2019/129902 (10) CIC/ADDDM/C/2019/130033 Appellant/Complainant filed the same RTI applications dated 29.12.2018 seeking information on seven points regarding his two complaints dated 10.11.2018 and 24.12.2018. In this respect he sought following information:-
1. Inform the action taken on his complaint dated 10.11.2018.
2. Inform the entire sequence of flow/movement of his complaint with various officials of various public authorities and action taken by each of official on Page 7 of 9 his complaint. Provide the name of the official, designation of the official, name of the public authority etc.
3. Inform that with which deptt. and with which public authority on his complaints are lying with, at the time of reply of PIO of the public authority.
4. What action, actually, has been initiated and /or taken by the respective public authority on above said complaints, giving the details separately for each of two complaints. And other related issues.
PIO/(HQ)/SDM-North vide letter dated 14.01.2019 transferred the RTI application to the PIO/SDM(HQ)/N-W under section 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the First Appeal dated 08.03.2019. FAA vide order 15.04.2019 stated that since RTI application was transferred to PIO/SDM-N-W, first appeal may also be transferred to FAA/ADM/North West.
Feeling aggrieved over the non-compliance of FAO, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 08.10.2019 in respect of file No. CIC/ADDDM/A/2019/129902 and file No. CIC/ADDDM/C/2019/130033.
Decision:
Substantial adjudication of similar issues have taken place by this Commission vide order dated 27.09.2019 with respect to a batch of appeals numbered CIC/NDMCR/A/2018/104823 + 10 more appeals, which relates to the same litigating parties and same subject matter. Hence, these two cases shall not be adjudicated afresh being barred by operation of principle of res judicata.
(11) CIC/DSESJ/A/2018/170615 Appellant filed the same RTI applications dated 25.04.2018 seeking information on eight points regarding an FIR No. 508/2016 registered on the basis of his complaint regarding violation under Delhi Preservation of Tree Act 1994. In this respect, he sought the following information:-
1. What is the status of the action taken by Delhi Police on the said FIR.
2. Provide the certified copies of the entire set of documents related to the action taken by the public authority as well as responses received /statements made from/by anybody including any other Govt. agency and/or any other private person and local RWA of AC Block Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
3. Provide the certified copies of the entire set of documents of charge sheet filed by IO in this case.
4. Whether supplying the copy of charge sheet alongwith other documents by IO to primary complainant is the responsibility of IO or not. Etc. Page 8 of 9 PIO vide letter dated 05.07.2018 replied to the Appellant informing him to obtain information as per procedure laid down by the Delhi High Court Rules and Order.
Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed First Appeal dated 04.08.2018. Feeling aggrieved with no response received from the FAA, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been received from the Appellant vide letter dated 05.10.2019 in this case. During the course of hearing, it was informed by the respondent that the case filed pursuant to the appellant's complaint to the Forest Dept. which was sent to Delhi Police where FIR No. 508/16 was registered and chargesheet was sent to the Rohini Courts, Delhi vide RC No. 393/2017 on 03.08.2017 and the case was pending before the Court of MM, North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi. The appellant's query related to a case pending before the Court of the MM and some part of the judicial records, hence he was informed to obtain the information as per procedure laid down by the Delhi Court Rules. An order dated 05.09.2018 in this regard was passed by the FAA and has been placed on record by the respondent. It has further been contended by both parties that the case about which information was sought by the appellant, has been decided now.
Decision:
Upon hearing averments of both parties and perusal of the relevant records of the case, the Commission finds that no interference is required in this case. The Court case about which information was sought by the Appellant, has attained finality now. The Appellant is at liberty to inspect records as per FAA's order dated 05.09.2018.
The above appeals are disposed off with the above directions.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . नसन्द्हा) Information Commissioner(सूचना आयुक्त ) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणितसत्यापितप्रतत) Ram Parkash Grover (राम प्रकाश ग्रोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26180514 Page 9 of 9