Central Information Commission
R. L. Ladwal vs District Session Judge on 21 April, 2020
के ीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/137415
CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/137414
CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/165042
CIC/DSESJ/A/2018/161824
CIC/DSESJ/A/2018/100878
CIC/DELRC/A/2018/159328/DERCM
Shri R L Ladwal ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO/Suptd-(Power) ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Department of Power,
GNCTD, 8th Level, B-Wing,
Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate,
New Delhi - 110002
PIO,
O/o. District & Sessions Judge-(S/W),
District Court-Dwarka, South West,
Near Dwarka Sector-10 Metro Station,
Dwarka, New Delhi - 110075
PIO,
O/o. District Sessions Judge,
Shahdara District,
Karkardooma Courts, Karkardooma,
Delhi - 110032
PIO/Dy. Secretary,
Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission,
GNCTD, Viniyamak Bhawan,
C-Block, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi - 110017
Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Section Officer,
Department of Power;
Mr. Teja Ram, BI/Rep. of PIO,
Dwarka District Court;
Smt. Renu Sharma, PIO, O/o. District
& Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts;
Mr. C.K. Roy, Joint Secretary/PIO,
Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission
Page 1 of 11
Date of Hearing : 03.03.2020
Date of Decision : 20.04.2020
lnformation 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 FAO
appeal
137415 30.01.2018 15.02.2018 19.02.2018 20.03.2018
137414 23.01.2018 31.01.2018 19.02.2018 20.03.2018
165042 10.05.2018 04.06.2018 21.06.2018 16.07.2018
161824 21.07.2018 25.07.2018 01.09.2018 24.09.2018
100878 16.11.2018 22.11.2018 14.12.2018 20.12.2018
159328 21.03.2018 21.05.2018 19.06.2018 26.06.2018
CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/137415
Information soughtand background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 30.01.2018 seeking information through 3 points:
1. Provide Action Taken Report on application dated 23.01.2018.
2. Provide reasons for not conducting audit of M/s Central East Delhi, BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. since July 2002.
3. Provide reason as to why BSES should not be put behind the bars for forgery.
PIO/Dy. Secy., CM Office, vide letter dated 01.02.2018 transferred the RTI application to Dept. of Power.
PIO/Dept. of Power, vide letter dated 15.02.2018 furnished the point wise reply to the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 19.02.2018. FAA vide order dated 20.03.2018 stated as follows "...after examination, the undersigned has reached the conclusion that the PIO May still take up the matter with the DERC, and the RTI application and the reply forwarded to the DERC to provide information pertaining to their Department directly to the Appellant within 15 days of issue of this order."
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/137414 Information sought and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 23.01.2018 seeking information through 5 points:
1. Provide reply in yes or no as to whether BYPL is vigilance branch of BSES?Page 2 of 11
2. From which Department did BYPL receive Appellant's Complaint dated 26.12.2017.
3. Whether 'ROC-MASTER DATA-CIN.U74899 DL 2001 PLC lll525 dated 04.07.2001' is correct or not?
PIO/Dy. Secy., CM Office, vide letter dated 29.01.2018 transferred the RTI application to Dept. of Power.
PIO/Dept. of Power, vide letter dated 31.01.2018 stated that the information sought pertains to DISCOM and the same is not available in this Department. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 19.02.2018. FAA vide order dated 20.03.2018 upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/165042 Information sought and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 10.05.2018 seeking information through 6 points:
1. Provide Action Taken Report on application dated 01.05.2018.
2. Provide reasons as to why grievance number 2018046973 was forwarded to BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.?
3. Whether M/s Central East Delhi Electricity DISCOM-I is still operative?
Provide the name of CMD/MD of M/s Central East Delhi Electricity DISCOM-I. Etc PIO/Dept. of Power, vide letter dated 04.06.2018 forwarded the reply to the Appellant provided by PGC. (Copy of PGC enclosure not attached.) Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 21.06.2018. FAA vide order dated 16.07.2018 "...after examination, the undersigned has reached the conclusion that the PIO May still take up the matter with the DERC, hence the RTI application and the reply forwarded to the DERC for and appropriate reply directly to the Appellant within 15 days of issue of this order."
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Submission dated 20.02.2020 has been received from PIO/Power, Dept. of Power.
Both the parties are present for the hearing. Appellant produced a set of written submissions in support of his arguments in relation to the File Nos. CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/137415; CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/137414 and CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/165042. Upon the instance of the Commission, Appellant explained that he was an erstwhile employee of the Delhi Vidyut Board who was absorbed in BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. after unbundling and privatization of Delhi Vidyut Board into 6 different companies in the year 2002. He added that he Page 3 of 11 retired in 2012 and since then he is fighting for justice in order to save public money from alleged mass corruption by the Delhi Government. He further submitted that a CBI inquiry should be initiated in the matter and a categorical direction be given to the CAG to conduct an audit. Appellant being exasperated, argued that the BSES does not possess a license and without being registered, they are conducting business, resulting in tax evasion for the past 18 years.
Respondent submitted that available and relevant information has been provided to the Appellant. He further submitted that in compliance of the order of the First Appellate Authority, an appropriate reply had also been provided to the Appellant on 18.04.2018.
Decision:
On the basis of the proceedings during hearing, Commission directed the Respondent i.e., Department of Power to ascertain the contents of the written submission produced by the Appellant during the course of hearing and provide counter submissions to the Commission within two weeks i.e., before 17.03.2020.
Commission has received a combined counter submissions (in relation to the File Nos. CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/137415; CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/137414 and CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/165042) from Shri Sanjay Kumar, PIO, Department of Power on 12.03.2020, which is reproduced verbatim as under:
"With reference to your hearing Notices No. CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/137415 dated 28/01/2020; CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/137414 dated 28/01.2020 and CIC/DOPWR/A/2018/165042 dated 28/01/2020 replies of this Department has already been submitted in your office. On the day of hearing Appellant Sh. R.L. Ladwal has filed new submission which reply is as under:
S.N. Reply 1 Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 23.01.2007 in W.P. Nos.542/2007 & 544 of 2007 had stayed the impugned order of CIC dated 03/01/2006 wherein Hon'ble CIC had directed distribution companies (BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. & Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.) to appoint their Public Authorities within specified time frame. The copy of same is enclosed. 2 As per notification dated 22.11.2001, Consequent upon unbundling and privatization of Delhi Vidyut Board, the license was initially issued to 'Central East Delhi Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.' which was one of the three companies for distribution of electricity in Delhi. However, the said company changed its name to 'BSES Yamuna Power Ltd' through Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana vide letter dated 09.08.2002. The copy of certificate is enclosed.
3 Does not pertain to this Department.
4 Does not pertain to this Department.
5 DERC has been issued license to 'BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.'. The copy of licence has already been provided to applicant and same is enclosed in his Appeal.
6 -As above at no. 1- 7 DISCOMs are private companies and hold 51% equity shares which Page 4 of 11 was offered to them through a competitive bidding process. 8 The Clear copy of change of name of 'Central East Delhi Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.' to 'BSES Yamuna Power Ltd' is on record and attached with this reply.
9 -As above at no. 7- 10 Vague and misleading allegations submitted by Appellant. Clear copy of change of name of 'Central East Delhi Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.' to 'BSES Yamuna Power Ltd' is on record and attached with this reply.
11 Does not pertain to this Department.
12 Does not pertain to this Department.
13 -As above at no. 2- 14 Vague and misleading allegations submitted by Appellant. Clear copy of change of name of 'Central East Delhi Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.' to 'BSES Yamuna Power Ltd' is on record and attached with this reply.
15 -As above-
16 Sh. R.L.Ladwal, Appellant is erstwhile Delhi Vidyut Board employee & who was absorbed in BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. after unbundling 16A and privatization of Delhi Vidyut Board in 2002. He further superannuated from BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. during his services he has faces Suspension and Major Disciplinary Proceedings due to his misconduct. The Applicant is requesting for personal favour which are beyond ambit of RTI Act 2005.
It is further submitted that, Sh R L Ladwal mostly submits baseless, vague and misleading request for information which lie mostly out of ambit of RTI Act 2005. The information, whichever available, has already been furnished to him time and again along with inspections of related files.
He has been told multiple times that the information given by this office is what is available in this office and taking any action against any DISCOM is not in purview of RTI Act 2005. Still it is unclear why he keeps submitting same submission again and again which results in unwanted wastage of office hours and resources.
In light of above facts it is requested to that prayer of Sh. R.L.Ladwal may be dismissed/put to rest as available information has already been provided to the Appellant and his request to take action against DISCOM is out of ambit of RTI Act-2005."
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 5 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.
CIC/DSESJ/A/2018/161824 Information sought and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 21.07.2018 seeking information through 3 points:
1. How four different companies (BYPL, Yamuna Power Ltd, BSES and DISCOM-
I) have been termed to be the same vide order dated 12.07.2018? Provide copy of legal documents of the concerned companies.
2. Provide the grounds on which the POLC Court based its order dated 12.07.2018. Etc PIO/Dist. & Session Judge (SW) Dwarka, vide letter dated 25.07.2018 denied the information citing Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 01.09.2018. FAA vide order dated 24.09.2018 upheld the reply of PIO.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Both the parties present for the hearing. Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the PIO.
Respondent stated that the information sought is outside the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act because the Appellant was questioning the veracity of decision taken by Ms. Preeti Aggarwal Gupta, Ld. POLC, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi while passing an order dated 12.07.2018. He further submitted by reiterating written submissions of PIO/Sr. Administrative Officer (Judl.), South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi which is reproduced as under:
"1. RTI application dated 21/07/2018 was received by this office on 23/07/2018 and registered with ID no. 142/2018.
2. The information sought for by the Appellant in his RTI application was about the passing of order dated 12.07.2018 by the court of Ms. Preeti Aggarwal Gupta, Ld. POLC, Dwarka Courts, in the matter of R.L. Ladwal vs BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Since the information sought by the appellant pertains to judicial proceedings, therefore, the same was rejected by the office of PIO, Dwarka, as per Delhi District Court (RTI Rules), 2008 under the exemption from disclosure of information under Rules 7(vi) which related to judicial proceedings or judicial functions or matter incidental or ancillary thereto.Page 6 of 11
3. It is further submitted that the appellant had filed the first appeal before the First Appellate Authority/RTI Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, on 31/08/2018. Ld. First Appellate Authority did not find any illegality or infirmity in the reply sent by the office of the PIO and dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 24.09.2018.
Prayer:-
In the above circumstance, it is prayed that the present appeal may kindly be dismissed, being devoid of any merit."
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. Hence, the instant appeal is disposed off with no further directions.
CIC/DSESJ/A/2018/100878 Information sought and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 16.11.2018 sought Action Taken Report on his complaint dated 30.10.2018 against Shri S.K. Sirohi.
PIO/Dist. & Session Judge Karkardooma, vide letter dated 22.11.2018 informed the Appellant that the information sought has been collected from the concerned branch of Shahdara Dist. u/s 5(4) of RTI Act, consisting of 1 page and the same was provided to the Appellant.
Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 14.12.2018. FAA vide order dated 20.12.2018 Appellate Authority stated that the information sought by the Appellant is not maintainable.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Submission dated 29.01.2020 has been received from Link officer, Karkardooma Courts, Shahdara District.
Both the parties are present for the hearing. Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the PIO.
Respondent reiterated to her written submission dated 29.01.2020, which is reproduced as under:
"I am to refer to Notice of Hearing in File No. CIC/DSESJ/A?2019/100878 dated 16.01.2020 received by this office. In this regard, my submissions in respect to disposal of RTI bearing ID No. 562 are as follows:-Page 7 of 11
1) That the RTI application dated 16.11.2018 filed by the appellant Sh. R. L. Ladwal was received by this office vide ID no. 562 and copy of the complaint attached with the RTI application.
2) That after perusing the complaint attached with the above said application for RTI it has come to know that the same was dealt with by the General Branch, Shahdaa District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, hence, the same was sent to the concerned branch vide diary no.
7537/RTI/SHD/KKD/Delhi/2018/562 dated 17/11/2018 for seeking reply.
3) Consequently, a reply bearing diary no. 7587 dated 19.11.2018 received from the General Branch, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and same was forwarded to the appellant vide diary no. 7618/RTI/SHD/KKD/Delhi/2018/562 dated 22/11/2018.
4) That thereafter, the appellant moved an appeal dated 14.12.2018 before the First Appellate Authority and vide order dated 20.12.2018 First Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal.
Further, it is submitted that the copy of complaint dated 30.10.2018 along with his RTI application bearing I.D. no. 562/2018, and the copy of complaint dated 30.10.2018 along with the appellate order dated 20.12.2018 filed before your goodself are different.
Further, it is submitted that so far as, the complaint dated 30.10.2018 along with the appellate order dated 20.12.2018 filed before your goodself is concerned, the subject is complaint against the Judicial Officer and the grievance against the Judicial proceedings. In this regard, it is submitted that on query it is revealed that the said complaint was dealt with by the Judicial Branch and since the complaint was related to some judicial proceedings pending in the court of Ld. ACJ, Shahdara District and sought redressal of grievance against BSES the same was filed as no order required at Administrative end.
Further, it is submitted that the appellant is a habitual complainant and in most of his all complaints grievance is against BSES, Delhi Govt. and DERC.
It is further submitted that the applicant is a party in the present cases and asp per rule, he is entitled to inspect the judicial record and can move appropriate appeal before the appropriate authority against the judicial proceedings, but instead of adopting the simple procedure he is moving the complaints/RTI applications time and again and is trying to divert the resources of public authority disproportionately.
PRAYER:
It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that keeping in view the above mentioned facts and circumstances the appeal of the appellant may kindly be dismissed and to stop the misuse of RTI Act by such persons, they should be burdened with heavy cost, so that in future such like of incidents may not occur."Page 8 of 11
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.
CIC/DELRC/A/2018/159328/DERCM Information sought and background of the case:
Appellant filed RTI application dated 21.03.2018 seeking information on 5 points;
1. Action Taken Report of application dated 19.02.2018.
2. Whether BSES is a Public Entity? By which Authority was the logo of BSES approved.
3. Action Taken Report on application dated 12.03.2018. Etc PIO/Dy. Secy. DERC, vide letter dated 21.05.2018 informed the Appellant that information is not available on point nos. A, B, D & E of the RTI application and provided a reply to point C. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the PIO, Appellant filed First Appeal dated 19.06.2018. FAA vide order dated 26.06.2018 stated that the Appeal is in the nature of a Complaint and unsubstantiated allegations and does not merit admission as Appeal under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005.
Feeling aggrieved as dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in the course of hearing:
Both the parties are present for the hearing. Appellant stated that he is not satisfied with the reply of the PIO.
Respondent submitted that the Appellant has in the instant RTI Application, made allegations/sought clarifications which are outside the purview of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, except point no. C of the RTI Application, which was duly replied. He further substantiated his averment by relying upon Para 8 of Annexure of DOPT O.M. No. 1/69/2007-IR dated 27.02.2008 which states as under:
"Only such information is required to be supplied under the Act which already exists and is held by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. The CPIO is not supposed to create information; or interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions."
He added that the Appellant himself has filed 55 RTI Applications whereas his associates have filed 6 RTI Applications seeking similar or identical information, which has already been provided to him. Apart from this, the Appellant himself Page 9 of 11 has filed 17 Appeals whereas his associates have filed 2 Appeals which meant to harass and pressurise the public authority. He referred to earlier orders of the Commission wherein the Appellant has been cautioned, yet, he has not desisted from filing Appeals.
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 pressurise the public authorities; the notion of misuse of RTI Act well recognised 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 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."Page 10 of 11
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.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . िस हा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) Ram Parkash Grover (राम काश ोवर) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)/011-26180514 Page 11 of 11