Central Information Commission
H K Sehgal vs Ministry Of Power on 24 March, 2017
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110066
F. No.CIC/LS/A/2013/001610-YA
CIC/SS/A/2014/000192-YA
CIC/RM/A/2014/002001-YA
CIC/YA/A/2015/002456
CIC/YA/A/2016/000719
CIC/YA/A/2016/001415
CIC/YA/A/2016/000953
CIC/YA/A/2015/002771
Date of Hearing : 11.07.2016
Date of Decision : 11.08.2016
Appellant/Complainant : Dr. H K Sehgal, Delhi
Respondent : CPIO, Rural Electrification Corp.
Ltd. Delhi
Through:
Sh. Sunil Bajaj, AM(Law) & APIO
Sh. Vinay Kesarwani, DGM
Information Commissioner : Shri Yashovardhan Azad
Since both the parties are same in the above mentioned appeals,
these appeals are clubbed together for hearing and disposal to avoid
multiplicity of the proceedings.
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Case RTI filed no. CPIO reply First appeal FAA order 2nd appeal
No. filed filed on
1610 17.05.2013 02.07.2013 26.06.2013 05.08.2013 26.08.2013
0192 14.10.2013 29.10.2013 05.12.2013 23.12.2013 15.01.2014
2001 05.02.2014 03.04.2014 11.03.2014 03.04.2014 12.05.2014
2456 30.04.2015 05.06.2015 23.06.2015 31.08.2015 14.09.2015
0719 05.10.2015 24.11.2015 02.12.2015 No order 17.02.2016
passed
1415 29.09.2015 06.11.2015 01.12.2015 31.12.2015 21.03.2016
0953 20.10.2015 06.11.2015 17.11.2015 No order 29.02.2016
passed
2771 21.05.2015 17.06.2015 29.06.2015 31.08.2015 22.09.2015
Summary background of the cases:
1. The following cases arise out of an LTC claim raised by the
appellant on 01.10.1991 which was found to be false, hence
investigation was done and the appellant charge sheeted for the
same. Records reveal that the appellant, an ex-employee of the
Respondent authority was dismissed from services vide penalty
order dated 11.03.1992 upon conclusion of disciplinary
proceedings instituted against him for the alleged acts of
commission and omission. An appeal preferred by the appellant
against the orders of the Disciplinary Authority culminated into an
order dated 01.10.2013 whereby the penalty of "Dismissal from
Service" was converted into "Removal from service which shall not
be a disqualification for further employment" purely on
humanitarian grounds. The writ petition filed by the appellant
challenging the order of dismissal from service was dismissed vide
order dated 18.10.1995 passed by the Delhi High Court and the
Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant in the Supreme Court
challenging the order of the Delhi High Court was dismissed as
withdrawn on 15.07.1996. It has been submitted further that
subsequently, since 2006 the appellant has filed enormous
number of RTI applications before the Respondent Public Authority
dealing with all possible aspects of the same incident. The subject
matter remaining constant, the queries of the Appellant in his
more than 50 odd applications filed before the Respondent
organisation are repetitive in nature and as such time consuming
to deal with repetitively. The Commission itself has heard more
than 25 cases of this appellant on the same issue and this Bench
has alone heard and decided another batch of 4 cases earlier,
dealing with the same subject matter.
2. The Appellant agitates these cases once again in the eight appeals
clubbed today for hearing stating that the enquiry proceedings
which followed the allegation of false LTC claim raised by him,
were vitiated. In fact the appellant states that the very foundation
of the allegations levelled against him were incorrect since the LTC
claim though raised, was never passed nor payment made against
it. The Respondents on the other hand have repeatedly stated that
information as available with them have been provided time and
again and all the queries of the appellant have been duly attended
and inspection has also been provided to the appellant.
3. The Respondents have complained that copy/s of second appeals
in all of the aforementioned cases have not been provided by the
appellant despite repeated letters addressed to the appellant. This
has been rebutted strongly by the Appellant stating it is factually
incorrect and fallacious. In fact the Appellant has added that the
written submissions filed by the Respondent before the
Commission have been supplied to him only after the hearing held
on 11.07.2016.
In the premises of the above facts, the following cases are taken up for
hearing.
CIC/YA/A/2016/001610
Information soughtand background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 17.05.2013, the appellant sought multifaceted information under 7 points regarding his passing and payment of LTC claim submitted on 01.10.1991 along with action taken on his multiple letters.
CPIO vide letter 02.07.2013, furnished point wise information as available on records. The appellant preferred first appeal. FAA vide order dated 05.08.2013 disposed of the appeal by upholding the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
During the hearing both parties were present and the Appellant stated that the information sought by him was not received within the stipulated time in this case. He further expressed his grievance with respect to the FAA's response on various counts like delay and not covering each of the points raised in the First Appeal etc. After the hearing, the Appellant sent his written submissions seeking opinion of the Bench as to whether the CPIO and the FAA have failed to discharge their respective duties or not.
Decision:
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission finds that information as sought by the appellant have indeed been provided by the Public Authority. The only point emphasised by the appellant is the delay in response by the public authority. In view of the flurry of applications filed by the applicant on the same issue repeatedly, delays in replies to a few of them cannot be considered as a serious lapse and hence stands condoned. The Commission also does not find any wilful or deliberate misrepresentation of facts on the part of respondents as alleged by the appellant. No further action is warranted in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
CIC/SS/A/2014/000192-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 14.10.2013, the appellant sought multifaceted information under 5 points regarding "current status of LTC claim" submitted by Dr. H K Sehgal, Ex-Additional Director on 01.10.1991. CPIO vide reply dated 29.10.2013 furnished point wise information as available on record. The appellant preferred first appeal. FAA vide order dated 23.12.2013 disposed of the appeal by upholding the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
During the hearing both parties were present when the Appellant stated that he received the PIO reply only after filing of the First Appeal and accordingly its his belief that the PIO reply was an afterthought and sent after perusal of his First Appeal by the public authority. The respondents claimed to have given the information regarding the core issue raised by the appellant i.e. the LTC claim and its status. The information was furnished in time and the FAO had also given a speaking order.
Decision:
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission notes that this query is the same as the one raised in various other applications of his relating to the LTC claim. The appellant has raised a number of issues relating to his LTC claim and the Respondents have answered very succinctly mentioning the core facts i.e. that the appellant had taken an LTC claim of Rs. 26,903/- in Oct 1990. He was issued a charge sheet in 1991 and the Enquiry Officer in his report gave his finding that the charge of fraudulent claim was found substantiated after the conclusion of Disciplinary proceedings. He was dismissed from service which was later changed to removal from service. The penalty of removal from service awarded to the appellant stood confirmed by subsequent litigations which occurred in the various Courts of law and the issue stands decided way back in 1996 and is pointless to be agitated over and over again. The appellant is now raising technical points regarding adjustment of the LTC advance, refunds towards cancelled tickets etc. which have been clarified by the Respondent in his reply. The Commission is in agreement with the response of the Respondent and finds no further information is required to be furnished in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
CIC/RM/A/2014/002001-YA Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 05.02.2014, the appellant sought information regarding inspection and procurement of papers relating to his two letters dated 8 November, 2013, addressed to CMD, REC, New Delhi. CPIO vide letter dated 03.04.2014 replied to RTI but letter is not in record. The appellant preferred first appeal. FAA vide order 03.04.2014 disposed of the appeal by upholding the reply of CPIO as sought denied u/s 2(f) of RTI Act, 2005. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
During the hearing, the deliberations between parties revealed that the response dated 03.03.2014 furnished by the CPIO did not reach the Appellant. The CPIO stated that information was provided vide letter dated 03.03.2014, which is also mentioned by the FAA in his order dated 03.04.2014. The appellant requested that the files may be summoned and inspection allowed under CIC's supervision.
Decision:
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission notes that the appellant has again asked for information relating to auditing/settlement of his LTC claim. In the instant application, he has sought this information through another route. He has sought information regarding the two letters submitted by him to the CMD, REC on the above subject and wanted to see all the related files, letters, documents etc. The Commission finds this exercise on the part of the appellant merely an attempt to circumvent the main issue i.e. his removal from service by the REC on account of fraudulent LTC claim. The entire information has been provided against another RTI query. The Respondents appear to have answered the same issue a number of times as also vide letter dated 03.03.2014 in this case. The Commission directs the PIO to furnish another copy of the same letter dated 03.03.2014, referred above, to the appellant within a week of receipt of this order.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
CIC/YA/A/2015/002456 Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 30.04.2015, the appellant sought multifaceted information under 13 points regarding payment of salary and subsistence allowances for the period he was on leave.
CPIO vide letter dated 05.06.2015, furnished point wise information as available on record. The appellant preferred first appeal. FAA vide order dated 31.08.2015 disposed of appeal by upholding the CPIO reply. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
The appellant stated during hearing that he was not allowed inspection of records and among the 26 files inspected by him on 17.06.2015 none were relevant to his queries and some did not even have papers. He did however take photocopies of 26 pages upon payment of Rs. 52/- as the charges. He states that he was not called thereafter for any further inspection. The appellant now has made an appeal before the Commission that all these files may be summoned before the Commission, duly flagged, for inspection before the Commission. The Respondents averred that reply was furnished to the appellant in due course and he was also offered inspection he paid Rs. 52/- for obtaining copies of 26 pages. The Respondent further clarified that the subsistence allowance for the period of 3-4 initially held back for administrative reasons was subsequently paid to the appellant though the appellant denied receipt of the same. The Respondents pointed out that information as sought was provided to the appellant but the interrogative queries of the appellant could not be answered since interrogations do not fall within the purview of RTI Act.
Decision:
After hearing parties and perusal of record, the Commission notes that a detailed speaking order has been given by the FAO wherein each of appellant's queries have been deliberated upon and replied to including the time taken for reply, availability of files for inspection, leave encashment, gratuity etc. The FAO has further stated that there are no other file/s over and above these 26 files provided already to the appellant. It is also worth noting that though the appellant has claimed that the files were irrelevant, yet he took copies of 26 pages out of the same files, thereby indicating that the files did have relevant information.
It has also been clearly mentioned by the Respondents that the appellant has inspected all the files pertaining to him in HR Division. The CIC in Jyotiram vs. PIO, IGNOU [CIC/OK/A/2008/00652/SG/0529] has dismissed the appeal on filing repeated applications on almost same queries. There is no further cause of action to be adjudicated in this case, considering the submissions of the Respondents. Hence, the Respondent is directed to submit an affidavit certifying that apart from the 26 files already shown/inspected by the appellant, there is no other file relevant to the query of the appellant, existent in the HR section of the Respondent. This affidavit deposed by a responsible officer, should be submitted by the REC before the Commission within two weeks of receipt of this order, with a copy thereof marked to the appellant.
The appeal is disposed on the above terms.
After the hearing of the first four appeals, the appellant made a request for adjournment of hearing of the remaining cases. Since the matters were listed with advance notice to parties and number of officials from the office of the Respondent were present, in the larger interest, the Commission did not deem it expedient to adjourn the cases, thereby causing loss of effective working hours spent by each official and also loss of judicial time. Since it transpired that remaining cases were also based on the similar facts and premises and nothing different has been dealt with even in the said cases, the Commission opined that hearing of the cases be held based on records already submitted.
CIC/YA/A/2016/000719 CIC/YA/A/2016/000953 CIC/YA/A/2016/001415 Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 05.10.2015, the appellant wanted to know the status/action taken on 18 letters he had addressed to various functionaries including Cabinet Secretary, Principal Secy. to PM, Secy/Power. In addition he wanted to inspect all the relevant files and papers in this regard. In the same RTI he has sought details like a step- by-step evaluation of performance. Other areas of queries relate to leave encashment, payment of gratuity rules, disciplinary matters and pay and allowances.
The last two appeals viz. CIC/YA/A/2016/000953 & CIC/YA/A/2016/00145 seek the same information and hence are disposed of together - the query being about action taken on the aforesaid letters addressed to the various functionaries.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
During the hearing it transpired that the FAA has dealt with each aspect of the matter and given a reasoned and speaking order dated 05.04.2016 which was submitted during hearing, since it was not made a part of the Second appeal.
Decision:
After hearing submissions and perusal of record, the Commission is of the opinion that the queries of the Appellant have been adequately addressed by the public authority already. In fact the same set of queries have been addressed by the Commission in the case number CIC/CC/A/2015/002271-YA vide order dated 31.12.2015. Hence by operation of Res Judicata, no further action in this case is required.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
CIC/YA/A/2015/002771 Information sought and background of the case:
Vide RTI application dated 21.05.2015, the appellant sought multifaceted information under 20 points regarding LTC advance, rules on the basis of which the LTC advance was allowed or disallowed, authority who did so, CPF fund and such other related information.
CPIO vide order dated 17.06.2015, furnished point wise information as available on records and drew reference to an earlier case already decided by the Commission on the same subject viz. CIC/LS/A/2013/001384/SS. The appellant preferred first appeal. FAA vide order dated 31.08.2015 disposed of appeal by upholding the reply of CPIO. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the Commission.
Relevant facts emerging during hearing:
During the hearing the Respondents stated that information as available had been furnished to the appellant while against the query number one it was pointed out that the issue had been adjudicated and the case dismissed by the Commission vide an earlier decision no. CIC/LS/A/2013/001384/SS dated 19.05.2015.
Decision:
After hearing submissions and perusal of record, the Commission notes that information as available has been provided. While those which are not available in material form have been denied as such. In view of the fact that the denial of information against points 1 to 5 have been decided by an earlier decision of the Commission, as noted above, no further orders are required in this case.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
CONCLUSION
4. The Commission's directions in each of the cases have been listed above. The necessary information in the cases Number CIC/YA/A/2015/002456 and CIC/YA/A/2015/002001 are directed to be complied with by the Respondents within two weeks of receipt of this order.
5. Before parting with the matter at hand, the Commission notes that the appellant has made a series of uncalled for and uncharitable remarks against the Respondent public authority both in his innumerable correspondences, submissions and during the hearing. He has expressed complete lack of faith in the respondents suggesting that all inspections of documents/files should be done under the supervision of CIC. He has further sent more than fifteen emails and letters to the Commission since the hearing, communicating his suggestions, apprehensions, grievances almost like a daily diary. In fact the contents of his emails are incoherent, inconsistent in as much as the same person who pleads that hearing of some of his cases should have been rescheduled on account of his old age, goes on to send copious amounts of documents regularly, alternating between prayers, exhortations, surmises and derisive comments. The subject matter as also the comments within the correspondences are repetitive and make for labored reading. There is neither any new fact nor any fresh thought on the subject matter. It is further pertinent to note that while during and right after the hearing, the Appellant was aggrieved with non receipt of the written submissions filed by the Respondent before the Commission, even after the receipt of the written submissions, his grievance/s and allegations changed into more technical averments almost to the level of nit-picking.
Interestingly, the Appellant in his various communications addressed to the Commission has also expressed that he expects the Commission to deal with each and every hypercritical and carping remark of his, considering each of them as his grievance.
6. The Commission is unable to overlook the fact that the main objective of the appellant is to overawe the Public Authority seeking a humungous amount of information. In the process, he has sought innumerable pieces of information relating to the same issue. This relentless exercise has continued for more than a decade- since 2006 he has been filing RTI applications with the Respondent public authority, which today have exceeded the number of fifty and this Commission has been adjudicating his appeals on the same subject matter against the same public authority since 2008. This the appellant is continuing after having exhausted all his legal remedies against his dismissal/removal from service by the Public Authority, before the High Court and the Supreme Court and receiving no favourable order at any forum, since his case lacked merit ab initio. In addition the appellant has continuously derided the public authority accusing them of numerous mindless allegations. On this count alone, his appeal could have been rejected but in the interest of justice fair hearing has been granted to him. CIC is already flooded with cases of disgruntled ex-employees of various organisations, who are choking the system, causing colossal waste of judicial time preventing the hearing of genuine cases.
7. The conduct of the appellant in multiplying his same plea into manifold litigation indicates he is not only a perpetual litigant but also a vexatious one who is seeking to submerge the normal functioning of the Respondent authority under a deluge of repetitive and irrelevant paperwork. The Commission finds this as gross abuse of the RTI Act, and the law of the land is very clear on this aspect.
8. This Commission has in its decision no. CIC/YA/A/2014/001071, 001123,001210 while disposing of a batch of fifteen matters of one Mr. M Danasegar dated 30.06.2015 has held as follows:
"......The Commission finds this case to be a classic instance of blatant misuse of RTI Act by the appellant, who is a disgruntled employee of the same organisation, through relentlessly filing of a series of RTI applications to harass officials of a public authority. The information sought in most of his RTI applications has no public interest at all and veers around the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. In the process of seeking the same, the appellant has resorted to reckless data mining on a humongous scale. Still, information has been provided by the respondent authorities as per record on some points and the rest denied for the reason that it is either voluminous or not available or relates to clarification/interpretation. The appellant, motivated by personal interest, has clearly sought such information with the vengeful motive to harass the officers through a flurry of RTI applications. The RTI Act cannot be allowed to be misused or abused and to become a tool of oppression or for intimidation of officials striving to do their duty. ..."
9. The Commission in its aforesaid decision placed reliance on the following Apex Court decision regarding vexatious and frivolous petitions. The Supreme Court in Advocate General, Bihar vs. M.P. Khair Industries (AIR 1980 SC 946) has termed "....filing of frivolous and vexatious petitions as abuse of the RTI process. Some of such abuses specifically mentioned by the Apex Court include initiating or carrying on proceedings which are wanting in bona-fides or which are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. The Apex Court also observed that in such cases the Court has extensive alternative powers to prevent an abuse of its process by striking out or staying proceedings or by prohibiting taking up further proceedings. ...."
10. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the Apex Court had discussed the issue in great details in the case of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs. The State of West Bengal , (AIR 2003 SC 280 Para 11) J. Pasayat had held:
".........It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the Courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but expressing our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters, Government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of case... ... ... etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the Courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the Courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the Courts, as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the Courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system..........."
11. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) Vs B Bharathi [WP No. 26781/2013 dated 17.09.2014] has also given its opinion about such vexatious litigation crippling the public authorities and held as follows:
"...The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest. ...."
12. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court while deciding the case of Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. [W.P. (C) 845/2014] has observed that:
"........Consequently, this Court deems it appropriate to refuse to exercise its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. This Court is also of the view that misuse of the RTI Act has to be appropriately dealt with, otherwise the public would lose faith and confidence in this "sunshine Act". A beneficial Statute, when made a tool for mischief and abuse must be checked in accordance with law. ...................."
13. The Apex Court in two vital decisions has categorically cautioned thus:
"...The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under Clauses (f) and (j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. The right to information is a fundamental right as enshrined in Article 19 of the Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has declared in a plethora of cases that the most important value for the functioning of a healthy and well informed democracy is transparency. However it is necessary to make a distinction in regard to information intended to bring transparency, to improve accountability and to reduce corruption, falling under Section 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 government, preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information and optimum use (The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. Shaunak H. Satya and Ors, A.I.R 2011 SC 3336).
14. In the other celebrated judgement in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. , the Apex Court held as follows:
"...The Act seeks to bring about a balance between two conflicting interests, as harmony between them is essential for preserving democracy. One is to bring about transparency and accountability by providing access to information under the control of public authorities. The other is to ensure that the revelation of information, in actual practice, does not conflict with other public interests which include efficient operation of the governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. The preamble to the Act specifically states that the object of the Act is to harmonise these two conflicting interest. ...................................
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............................. 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 regular duties..."
15. In view of the settled position of law and the facts of these appeals at hand, it is noted that the public authority has already spent inordinately large number of man hours in furnishing the information to the appellant, which in the process would have already impinged on the resources of the organization. The Commission, therefore, is constrained to warn the appellant to be more careful in future and refrain from this relentless litigation over an issue which has now attained finality by efflux of time as well as having travelled to all the legal relevant forums of the country. In the event this tirade of frivolous, vexatious and wasteful round of litigation is seen to resurface the Commission will be compelled to dismiss his applications without hearing, on the grounds of being vexatious and repetitive and with an ulterior motivate.
The appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(Yashovardhan Azad) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(R.P. Grover) Designated Officer Copy to:-
Central Public Information Officer under RTI Central Public Information Officer u/RTI Under Secretary & CPIO, Nodal Officer - RTI Cell, Ministry of Power, Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, Core No.-4, Scope Complex, New Delhi-110001. 7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
First Appellate Authority under RTI Dr. H. K. Sehgal Executive Director-(Admin./Ren) & FAA, House No. - I-120, Rural Electrification Corporation Ltd., Naraina Vihar, Core No.-4 & 5, Scope Complex, New Delhi-110028.
7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.