Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Naresh Luthra vs Delhi Electricity Regulatory ... on 31 October, 2022

Author: Uday Mahurkar

Bench: Uday Mahurkar

                                       के न्द्रीयसच
                                                  ू नाआयोग
                             Central Information Commission
                                     बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
                             Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                               नईनिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067

द्वितीयअपीलसंख्या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/DERCM/A/2022/607578 -UM

Mr. Naresh Luthra

                                                                       ....अपीलकताा/Appellant
                                            VERSUS
                                              बनाम

CPIO,
Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission,
ViniyamakBhavan, C Block, Shivalik,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017




                                                                       प्रद्वतवादीगण /Respondent

Date of Hearing      :              28.10.2022
Date of Decision     :              31.10.2022



Date of RTI application                                               09.11.2021
CPIO's response                                                       01.12.2021
Date of the First Appeal                                              09.12.2021
First Appellate Authority's response                                  30.12.2021
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission                  Nil

                                           ORDER

FACTS The Appellant vide RTI application sought information, as under:-

The CPIO vide letter dated 01.12.2021, furnished a reply to the Appellant. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 30.12.2021, upheld the reply of the PIO, DERC and disposed off the Appeal.

Thereafter, the Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the Commission.

HEARING:

Facts emerging during the hearing:

The following were present:

Appellant: Absent Respondent: Ms Prashasti Dy. Director, Mr. Ashish Kamal Deputy Secretary Present in Person The Appellant remained absent during the hearing. The Respondent submitted that a suitable reply has been furnished to the Appellant vide letter dated 01.12.2021 and subsequently on 30.12.2021. He said the appellant was additionally told to either file a complaint in CGRF Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, or file a review petition to the ombudsman or file a writ petition in case his grievance is not resolved. He stated that the matter raised by the Appellant is a grievance which should be dealt in a different and appropriate forum.

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 Page 2 of 3 to the Appellant. Therefore, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. For the redressal of his grievance, if any, the Appellant may approach an appropriate forum.

The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.

(Uday Mahurkar) (उदय माहूरकर) ू ना आयुक्त) (Information Commissioner) (सच Authenticated true copy (अद्विप्रमाद्वणत एवं सत्याद्वपत प्रद्वत) (R. K. Rao) (आर.के . राव) (Dy. Registrar) (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26182598 द्वदनांक / Date: 31.10.2022 Page 3 of 3