Central Information Commission
Rameshwar Dayal Gaud vs Delhi Electricity Regulatory ... on 5 September, 2024
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DERCM/A/2023/148401
Rameshwar Dayal Gaud .....अपीलकर्ाग /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission,
Regulatory House, C Block, Shivalik,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi - 110017. ....प्रनर्वािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30.08.2024
Date of Decision : 05.09.2024
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 10.07.2023
CPIO replied on : 26.07.2023
First appeal filed on : 13.08.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 12.09.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.12.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.07.2023 seeking the following information:
1. प्रार्थी द्वारा भेजे गये प्रार्थथनापत्रों / शिकायतों दिनाांक 25.02.2023, 26.02.2023, 09.03.2023, 19.03.2023, 20.03.2023, 25.03.2023, 26.03.2023, 20.04.2023, 27.04.2023, 28.04.2023, 12.05.2023, 16.05.2023, 30.5.2023, वः 06.06.2023 पर अभी तक डिप्टी िायरे क्टर के Page 1 of 8 कायाथलय के द्वारा क्या-क्या कायथवाही हुई है तर्था श्रीमान डिप्टी िायरे क्टर महोिय द्वारा अपने नीचे के अधिकाररयों को उधचत कायथवाही हे तु क्या-क्या दििा ननिे ि दिए गए है बताने का कष्ट करें ।
2. प्रार्थी द्वारा पत्रों के माध्यम से उठाए गए सवालों अर्थाथत प्रश्नों एवां बबन्िओ ु ां के ववषय में कानून के अनुसार आपके क्या जवाब हैं बताने का कष्ट करें ।
The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 26.07.2023 stating as under:
1-2. इस सम्बन्ध में आपको सूचित ककया जाता है की आपके आवेदन पत्र ददनाांक 10.07.2023 के सम्बांचधत ववषयो पर DERC द्वारा, पत्र सांख्या No. F.9 (36)/DERC/RTI-5141/2023-24/830 ददनाांक 17.07.2023 के द्वारा, जबाब ददया जा िूका है , जजसकी प्रतत अनुलग्नक । के रूप में सांलग्न है ।
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.08.2023. The FAA vide its order dated 12.09.2023, held as under.
श्री रामेश्वर ियाल गौड़, मकान न. 1022 ई, लोदहया गली न. 5, बाबरपुर, िाहिरा, दिल्ली 110032, के द्वारा िायर अपील दिनाांक 13.08.2023 जो की पीआईओ, िीईआरसी के जवाबी पत्र No.F.9(36)/DERC/RTI- 5148/2023- 24/882 दिनाांक 26.07.2023, के ववरुद्ि है।
2. अपीलकताथ ने पीआईओ, िीईआरसी के उत्तर दिनाांक 26.07.2023 में अपील द्वारा, सूचना के अधिकार अधिननयम, 2005 के तहत सुनवाई करने की प्रार्थना की र्थी।
3. अिोहस्ताक्षरी ने इस मामले में अपीलार्थी को 11.09.2023 को प्रातः 11.00 बजे अिोहस्ताक्षरी के सार्थ व्यक्क्तगत सुनवाई का अवसर दिया र्था।
4. अपीलकताथ 11.09.2023 को प्रातः 11.00 बजे अिोहस्ताक्षरी के सार्थ व्यक्क्तगत सुनवाई में मौजूि र्थे।
5. उपरोक्त के मद्िे नजर, अिोहस्ताक्षरी, पीआईओ, िीईआरसी के जवाब से सांतुष्ट है और इस अपील को ननपटाया जाता है । अपीलकताथ की जानकारी के शलए अगले अपीलीय प्राधिकारी का वववरण नीचे दिया गया है : -Page 2 of 8
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not Present.
Respondent: Shri C K Roy, Joint Secretary, Ms. Rakhi Saxena, Dealing Assistant and Shri Darpan Sharma, Dealing Assistant present in person.
Written submissions of the Appellant are taken on record.
Written submissions of the Respondent are taken on record and the same is reproduced hereinbelow:
"This is with reference to your letter dated 16.08.2024 regarding Notices of Hearing on 30.08.2024 at 11.45 before Hon'ble Information Commissioner, Shri Vinod Kumar Tiwari, in the matter of Sh. Rameshwar Dayal Gaud Vs. PIO DERC, CIC/DERCM/A/2023/148401 dated 16.08.2024
2. It submitted that the Chronology of sequence events on RTI application and First Appeal of Sh. Rameshwar Dayal Gaud are as follows :-
1. RTI Application dated 10.07.2023 received on 11.07.2023 in which 2 points has been asked for under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 from the Deputy Director, Consumer Assistance, DERC. Notwithstanding the wrongly addressed RTI application the query of the applicant was replied to by the PIO, DERC vide his reply dated 17.7.2023.
2. The applicant vide the said RTI application at Point No.1 asked as to what action had the Deputy Director, Consumer Assistance, DERC had taken on a number of his complaints and what were the directions passed by the Deputy Director Consumer Assistance to her staff in the matter. At Point No.2 the applicant sought to know what actions as per law had the Deputy Director Consumer Assistance taken in the matters related to his various complaints which had been listed in his query at Point No. 1.
3. In this context the PIO, DERC informed the applicant that the status of his complaints so listed had already been informed to him vide reply to a previous RTI application of the applicant and copy of the PIO, DERC's reply dated 17.07.2023 (refers to CIC/DERCM/A/2023/148403 dated 16.08.2024 and DERC's RTI ID 5141) and a copy of the same was attached therewith, since in his previous RTI application dated 05.07.2023 too he had sought information with respect to his various listed complaints and the status had been informed to him Page 3 of 8
4. In this, the following is submitted for the kind consideration of the Han ble Information Commissioner;
(a) Para 8 of Annexure to DOPT O.M. No1/69/ 2007-IR dated 27 February 2006 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 to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions."
(b) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, while explaining the significance of RTI had also observed as follows
67. Indiscriminate and impractical demands or directions under the 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 counterproductive 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, tranquillity 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 prioritizing "information furnishing", at the cost of their normal and regular duties."
(c) In the matter of Mr. Ramesh Chand Jain Vs. DTC, File No.CIC/AD/ A/2013/001326SA decision dated 26.06.2014, Shri M. Sridhar Acharyulu Information Commissioner had observed as follows:
"No Scope for repeating under RTI Act
15. Though RTI Act, did not specifically provide this as a ground of refusing the information, it is implied from the various provisions of RTI Act, that any citizen has right to information only once and not repeatedly.
16. Once Information is given, applicant shall not seek the same once again. If the applicant seeks information again and again, the PIO, the First Appellate Authority and the Commission would be forced to spend their time on this repeated application, and in the process the authorities would lose that much time to address the other RTI applications or performing their general duties in their public office. Repeated RTI application amounts to clogging the office of public authority and CPIO would be right in refusing the same with intimation.Page 4 of 8
Because the Repeated RTI application has an effect of clogging the public offices, it would amount to obstructing the free flow of information to deserving and genuine RTI applicants, besides preventing the officers from performing their general duties attached to their office. Waste of public time and obstructing RTI
18. All the above discussion can be consolidated into two reasons:
(1) 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 would have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other public duty.
(ii) Every repetition of RTI application is an obstruction of flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act.
Recommendation of MoPT:
20. The Commission recommends the Ministry of Personnel and Training, the nodal agency for implementation of RTI Act, to commission the framing of guidelines, based on the experience from various public authorities and the orders of the Commissions of Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions, for the benefit of and ready reference by Central Public Information Officers to refuse the repeated RTI applications, provide a ground for First Appellate Authorities to refuse second appeals if arise out of such refusals and similarly to reject the Second Appeals by Information Commissions either central or state"
5. General: It is submitted to the Hon'ble Information Commissioner that, the nature of the complaints as initially forwarded by the RTI applicant was in the form of individual consumer grievances, however the functions of a State Electricity Regulatory Commission are well defined and laid out under the provisions of Section 85 of Electricity Act, 2003 which precludes resolution of individual consumer grievances. The same has been reaffirmed by Hon'ble APTEL (Appellate Tribunal of Electricity) and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the following judgments wherein it has been inter-alia held that the State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the individual consumer disputes under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 i. In AIR 2008 SC 1042,,MSEDC Vs. Lloyd Steel Industries Ltd. ii. In BSES Rajdhani Power Limited Vs. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission bearing Appeal No. 181 of 2008.
iii. In Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission Vs. Reliance Energy Ltd. (2007(8)SCC 381), the Hon'ble Supreme Court iv. In Madhya Gujarat Vij Company Limited Vs. Yash Co-operative Housing Service Society Limited & Ors. (Appeal No. 311 of 2013)
6.The applicant appealed against the reply of PIO, DERC and was provided a suitable chance by the First Appellate Authority, DERC, who provided a sympathetic ear to the individual's case and amply informed him about the Page 5 of 8 various provisions of furthering his case in the appropriate forum for dealing with his complaints. The hearing of the First Appellate authority was held on 11.09.2003 and the first Appellate Authority ruled that he was satisfied with the reply of the PIO, DERC.
7. The above submissions are hereby made in the matter of the CIC/DERCM/A/2023/148401 dated 16.08.2024, for kind consideration by the Hon'ble Information Commissioner."
The Respondent submitted that vide their letters dated 26.07.2023 and 12.09.2023, complete point-wise reply/information as per the documents available on record has been provided to the Appellant.
Upon being queried by the Commission, the Respondent submitted that copy of written submissions has not been shared yet with the Appellant. Decision:
The Commission upon a perusal of records observes that the main premise of instant appeal was non-furnishing of complete information by the CPIO. The Commission observes that complete point-wise reply/information has already been informed to the Appellant as per his RTI application vide letters dated 26.07.2023 and 12.09.2023.
Now at the stage of appeal, the Respondent has submitted his revised comments on the RTI application of the Appellant. Further, the said written submissions of the Respondent are being treated as a revised reply to the instant RTI application which was not yet shared with the Appellant. In view of this, the Respondent is directed to share their written submissions with the Appellant, through speed-post, within a week from the date of receipt of this order.
In this regard, the Commission finds no infirmity in the reply and the same was found to be in consonance with the provisions of RTI Act. No mala fide was observed on the part of the CPIO.
No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. Nonetheless, the Commission would like to advise the Secretary / Head of the Department in the matter. There have been and there still are numerous second appeals/complaints which are coming up for hearing before the Commission related to DISCOMS where the Commission has already heard and held DISCOMS to be Public Authority within the scope and meaning of RTI Act.
Page 6 of 8The operation of the said order of Commission has been stayed on an appeal filed by the DISCOM through an interim injunction passed in the year 2007. It is noted with concern that matter is pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court since 2007 i.e. pending from 17 years, which is crossing almost a generation, which is of 25 years as given in The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. In the meantime, general public at large are facing numerous issues pertaining to public services provided by DISCOMS.
In order to resolve such issues of general public, the Respondent Public Authority should approach the Apex Court for vacation of stay of order. With privatization of basic amenities governing life and living like electricity supply, education, healthcare etc, unless these are made accountable, public will suffer. Privatization unfortunately has been misunderstood as hiving off, thus, public suffers. In case of DISCOMS, it is also learnt that large infrastructure of network of electricity lines was created using powers under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 for "Public Purpose". Therefore, the urgency to get the interim injunction vacated needs no further emphasis.
The CPIO is directed to place a copy of this order before the Competent Authority for appropriate action in the matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणर् सत्यानपर् प्रनर्) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Page 7 of 8 Copy To:
Secretary Ministry of Power Shram Shakti Bhawan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi-1.
The FAA, Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, Regulatory House, C Block, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi - 110017, Page 8 of 8 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)