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/2023/148403
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 : 05.07.2023
CPIO replied on : 17.07.2023
First appeal filed on : 18.08.2023
First Appellate Authority's order : 12.09.2023
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 19.12.2023
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 05.07.2023 seeking the following information:
1. प्रार्थी द्वारा श्रीमान चेयरमैन महोदय डी.ई.आर.सी. को भेजी गई शिकायतें एवम प्रार्थथनापत्र ददनाांक 25.02.2023, 26. 02.2023, 18.03.2023, 19-20.03.2023,25.03. 2023, 26.03.2023, 27.04.2023, 28.04.2023,12. 05.2023,16.05.2023, के अांतगथत श्रीमान चेयरमैन महोदय डी. ई. आर.Page 1 of 11
सी. ने क्या-क्या आदे ि पाररत ककए और उनपर अभी तक क्या-क्या कायथवाही हुई है बताने का कष्ट करें ।
2. प्रार्थी के पररवार द्वारा ददनाांक 10.05.2022 को मकान नांबर 1022-ई, लोदहया गली नांबर 5, बाबरपुर, िाहदरा, ददल्ली-110032 को खरीदने के उपराांत ददनाांक 15.12. 2022 से मकान की मरम्मत एवां रे नोवेिन कराने पर ददनाांक 06.01.2023 को इनफोसथमेंट सैल द्ववतीय की टीम ने ननरीक्षण करने के उपराांत ददनाांक 06.02.2023 को बनाया हुआ सार्थ में सांलग्न बबल जोकक ददनाांक 07.01. 2022 से ददनाांक 06.01.2023 तक का बनाया गया है। यह इनफोसथमेंट सैल द्वारा बनाया गया बबल ददनाांक 06.02.2023 2023 आपके यहाां के कानून के आधार पर सही बनाया गया है अर्थवा गलत बनाया गया है । बताने का कष्ट करें ।
3. यह कक मकान की मरम्मत एवां रे नोवेिन कराने के शलए बबजली के ववभाग बी एस ई एस यमुना पावर शल. को आपके यहाां से उपभोक्ता को ककस प्रकार के मीटर का प्रयोग करने के शलए ददिा ननदे ि ददए गये हैं उस ननयम कानून की छायाप्रनत तर्था ननरीक्षण करने पर ककतने पहले समय से बबल चाजथ करने के शलए जो ददिा ननदे ि ददए गये हैं उसकी भी छायाप्रनत सार्थ में भेजने का कष्ट करें ।
4. यह कक कम सांख्या 2 में वर्णथत हमारे घर पर इनफोसथमेंट सैल की टीम के द्वारा जो कनेकक्टां ग लोड मीटर सी ए सांख्या 150194759 में दिाथया गया है वह 1.137 तर्था मीटर सी ए सांख्या 101625541 में दिाथया गया है वह 2.255 है परां तु उसी समय पर ददनाांक 10.01.2023 को बबजली के मीटर की रीडडांग लेने वाले की मिीन ने लोड कमिः एम डी आई 0.80 ककलोवाट व 0.86 ककलोवाट दिाथई है और एम डी आई उस समय के प्रयोग में लाए गये अधधकतम लोड को दिाथती है । तब यह बताने का कष्ट करें कक दोनों में से कौन सा लोड सही दिाथया गया है तर्था ववजली की यूननटें पूरे समय में की गई खपत को दिाथती है।
5. यह कक इनफोसथमेंट सैल की टीम ने अधधक कनेकक्टां ग लोड 2.255 दिाथने वाले मीटर के सार्थ में सांलग्न बबल 27282/- रुपए से कनेकक्टां ग लोड 1.137 दिाथने वाले मीटर का सार्थ में सांलग्न बबल अधधक 45692/- रुपए दिाथया गया है। तब यह केस ककस आधार पर सही है , बताने का कष्ट करें । जबकक एम डी आई क्रमिः 0.86 व 0.80 उस समय पर आई हुई Page 2 of 11 र्थी जोकक उस दरशमयान (समय) प्रयोग में लाया गया लोड बताती है तब इनफोसमें ट सैल के बबल ककस आधार पर सहीां हैं अर्थवा गलत, बताने का कष्ट करें ।
6. यह कक बी एस ई एस यमुना पावर शल. की नन्द नगरी िाखा ने सी ए नांबर 150194759 के अपने बबल ददनाांक 09.07. 2022 के अांतगथत 4 ककलोवाट लोड करने हे तु १००/- रुपए शसक्यूररटी के रुप में चाजथ ककए र्थे और उस समय पर इस मीटर पर पहले से 3 ककलोवाट की जमा की गई शसक्यूररटी की राशि 2100/- रुपए र्थी। और प्रार्थी द्वारा शसक्यूररटी का भुगतान करने के पश्चात अपने बबल ददनाांक 08.10.2022 में शसक्यूररटी की राशि जमा 2888.17 रुपए दिाथई गयी है जबकक उपरोक्त अनुसार शसक्यूररटी की कुल राशि 3000/- रुपए होनी चादहए र्थी। तब यह बताने का कष्ट करें कक बी एस ई एस यमुना पावर शल. ने 111.83/- रुपए प्रार्थी/ उपभोक्ता के खाते में शसक्यूररटी की रकम कम जमा करके गलत कायथ ककया है अर्थवा नहीां बताने का कष्ट करें ।
7. यह है कक बी.एस.ई.एस. की टै ररफ प्रणाली के अांतगथत प्रर्थम 200 यूननटें तर्था द्ववतीय 200 सूननटें कफर तनृ तय 400 यूननटें इत्यादद रुप में प्रनत माह का ननयम है परां तु बी.एस.ई.एस. जो अपने बबलों की वतथमान में गणना करती है वह अग्रेजी साल के महीनों के दहसाब से करती है परां तु मीटर की रीडडांग जनवरी-फरवरी के तरीके से नहीां ली जाती है कजसके कारण कभी-कभी उपभेक्ता को 30 ददन के अांतगथत ही प्रर्थम 200 यूननट की जगह 198 यूननटें ही प्रर्थम रे ट में शमल पाती है इस प्रकार बी.एस.ई.एस. द्वारा वतथमान तरीके के अनुसार रीडडांग लेकर गणना करना उधचत है अर्थवा गलत, बताने का कष्ट करें ।
8. यह कक जब बी.एस.ई.एस. यमुना पावर शल. एक प्राईवेट कांपनी है और सरकार के प्रनतननधध के रुप में भी अपने को नहीां मानती है तो डी.ई.आर.सी. द्वारा बनाए गए ननयमों को उपभोक्ता पर स्वतः ककस आधार पर लगाती है और अपने बबल के अांतग थ त पें िन सरचाजथ ककस आधार कानून पर उपभोक्ता से चाजथ करती है , बताने का कष्ट करें ।
Page 3 of 11The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 17.07.2023 stating as under:
1. यह सूचिद किया गया है कि डीईआरती िो श्री रामेश्वर दयाल गौड़ से निन्िललखित संख्या में पत्र प्राप्त हुए हैं एवं तत्संबंधी िाययवाही इस प्रिार है:-
क्र. ददिांि िी गई उत्तर ददए गए पष्ृ ठों शुल्ि
सं. िारय वाई िी
संख्या
1 26.02.2023 बीवाईपीएल आपिी लशिायत िे 83 166
िो भेजें आधार पर डीईआरसी िे
िंबर.-Y-5804 मामले िो बीवाईपीएल
िो भेजिर िारय वाई िी
है । इस पर बीवाईपीएल
द्वारा उपभोक्ता िो
जवाब दे ददया गया।
2 20.04.2023 बीवाईपीएल इस पर बीवाईपीएल
िो भेजें द्वारा उपभोक्ता िो
िंबर.-Y-5804 जवाब दे ददया गया।
3 07.06.2023 बीवाईपीएल इस पर बीवाईपीएल
िो भेजें िंबर द्वारा उपभोक्ता िो
-Y-5804 जवाब दे ददया गया।
4 25.02.2023
5 18.03.2023
6 19- िॉपी प्राप्त हुआ है ।
20.03.2023
7 25.03.2023 (Copies are recived)
8 26.03.2023
9 27.04.2023
10 28.04.2023
11 12.05.2023
12 16.05.2023
प्रनत अिुलग्ि । िे रूप में वांनित होिे पर प्रदाि िी जा सिती है। 166 रुपये (एि सौ नियासठ रुपये), (83 पष्ृ ट; िे भुगताि िे अधीि ।Page 4 of 11
बबंदु 2, 4, 5, 6:-
सूििा डीईआरसी से संबंचधत िहीं है और यह डीईआरसी िे िायों िे तहत िहीं आती है , जैसा कि ववद्युत अचधनियम, 2003 िी धारा 86 िे तहत उल्ल्लखित है (अिुलग्िि िे रूप में संलग्ि प्रासंचगि अिय )। मांगी गई जाििारी ववतरण िंपिी से संबंचधत है । इस सन्दभय में , आपिो यह सूचित किया जाता है कि वतयमाि में माििीय उच्ि न्यायालय िे डीईआरसी बिाम सीआईसी और अन्य िे मामले में 23.04.2009। (WP (C) 6735/2007) िे निदे श िे अिुसार सूििा िे अचधिार अचधनियम, 2005 िे तहत डीईआरसी, डडस्िॉम्स से सूििा िहीं मांग सिता है।
(अिुलग्िि- ।। में संलग्र माििीय उच्ि न्यायालय िे आदे श िी प्रनत ददिांि 23.04.2009) आयोग िे उपभोक्ताओं िी लशिायतों से निपटिे िे ललए उपभोक्ताओं िी लशिायतों से निपटिे िे ललए नियमावली, 2019" और सावयजनिि बुलेदटि िंबर 13 भी जारी िी है । आवेदि इसिे अिुसार लशिायत िर सिता है । (अिुलग्रि- ।।। िे रूप में संलग्ि प्रासंचगि अिय ) 3, 7. डीईआरसी (आपूनतय संदहता और प्रदशयि मािि) ववनियम, 2017 िा ववनियम 10 (5) मौजूदा संपवत्त िे पुिनियमायण िे संबंध में प्रावधािों िो निधायररत िरता है और डीईआरसी (आपूनतय िोड और प्रदशयि मािि) ववनियम, 2017 िा ववनियम 10 (6) मौजूदा संपवत्त िे िवीिीिरण से संबंचधत प्रावधािों से संबंचधत है।
डीईआरसी (आपूनतय िोड और प्रदशयि मािि) ववनियम, 2017 िी समय-
समय पर संशोचधत िी गई प्रनत, डीईआरसी िी वेबसाइट www.derc.gov.in पर उपलब्ध है ।
8. आयोग िे ददल्ली बबजली सुधार अचधनियम, 2000 िी धारा 20 िे तहत िंपिी िो ववतरण लाइसेंस प्रदाि किया है और लाइसेंसधारी िी शतों िे अिुसार, लाइसेंसधारी िो समय-समय पर आयोग द्वारा जारी ववनियमों, आदे शों और निदे शों िा पालि िरिा होगा। यह आयोग िी वेबसाइट यािी https://derc.gov.in/license-issued-to-utilities पर उपलब्ध है ।
Page 5 of 11पें शि अचधभार लगािे िे संबंध में वववरण टै ररफ आदे श िे अध्याय-2 में उल्ल्लखित है जो आयोग िी वेबसाइट यािी http://www.derc.gov.in/tariff-orders पर उपलब्ध है ।
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 18.08.2023 . The FAA vide its order dated 12.09.2023, held as under.
श्री रामेश्वर दयाल गौड़, मकान न.1022 ई, लोदहया गली न. 5. बाबरपुर, िाहदरा, ददल्ली 110032, के द्वारा दायर अपील ददनाांक 18.08.2023 जो की पीआईओ, डीईआरसी के जवाबी पत्र No.F 9(36)/DERC/RTI-5141/2023- 24/1078 ददनाांक 16.08.2023, के ववरुद्ध है ।
2. अपीलकताथ ने पीआईओ, डीईआरसी के उत्तर ददनाांक 16.08.2023 में अपील द्वारा, सूचना के अधधकार अधधननयम, 2005 के तहत सुनवाई करने की प्रार्थना की र्थी।
3. अधोहस्ताक्षरी ने इस मामले में अपीलार्थी को 11.09.2023 को प्रातः 11.00 बजे अधोहस्ताक्षरी के सार्थ व्यकक्तगत सुनवाई का अवसर ददया र्था।
4. अपीलकताथ 11.09.2023 को प्रातः 11.00 बजे अधोहस्ताक्षरी के सार्थ व्यकक्तगत सुनवाई में मौजूद र्थे।
5. उपरोक्त के मद्दे नजर, अधोहस्ताक्षरी, पीआईओ, डीईआरसी के जवाब से सांतुष्ट है और इस अपील को ननपटाया जाता है ।
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.Page 6 of 11
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 11.40 A.M. before Hon'ble Information Commissioner, Shri Vinod Kumar Tiwari, in the matter of Sh. Rameshwar Dayal Gaud Vs. PIO DERC, CIC/DERCM/A/2023/148403 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:-
(a) RTI Application dated 05.07.2023 received on 06.07.2023 in which 8 points has been asked for information.
(b) At point no.1 the applicant asked as to what action was taken on his various complaints as listed by him in his RTI application dated 05.07.2023 and was accordingly informed about the status by the PIO, DERC vide his reply dated 17.07.2023. On perusal of the said reply it is noted that his complaints dated 26.02.2023, 20.4.2023 and 07.06.2023 were forwarded by DERC's Consumer Assistance Division to the concerned discom viz; BYPL and BYPL had in response replied to the applicant in all three cases and intimated DERC about the said replies. Furthermore, it was informed to the applicant that DERC had received another 09 complaints of the applicants as copies of complaints filed to various other entities.
(c) In the said RTI, the applicant at Point nos. 2,4,5 and 6 asked questions which were specific to a case of a raid by the enforcement team of the concerned discom and as to whether their actions, readings /assessments were correct or incorrect. The questions asked and explanations sought to a specific case of enforcement cell do not fall within the purview of DERC and accordingly. the applicant was informed about the provisions of Section 86 of the Electricity Act 2003, which gives out the functions of a State Electricity Regulatory Commission. It was also Informed to the applicant as per Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's Order Dated 23.04.2009, in the matter of WP (C) 6735/2007 DERC Vs CIC & Ors., DERC was not in a position to requisition the information specific to the discom concerned and copy of both the extracts of Section 86 of Electricity Act 2003 and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's said order were provided to the applicant.
(d) In this connection it also respectfully submitted to the Hon'ble Information Commissioner that Para 8 of Annexure to DOPT O.M. No1/69/2007-IR dated 27 February 2008 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."
Page 7 of 11(e) At Point Nos 3 and 7 of the said RTI application asked clarifications on issues related to installation of meters etc with regard to a house under repair/renovation and once again it is submitted that this does not fall within. the purview of the RTI Act 2005 and the PIO, in not obliged to provide clarifications on the same. Notwithstanding the same the attention of the Applicant was sought to the provisions of Regulation 10(5) and 10(6) of DERC (Supply Code and Performance Standards) Regulations, 2017, which provide for the provisions of electricity connections in case of reconstruction and renovation of existing properties. The appellant was also informed that the said regulations were available on the Commission's website at www.derc.gov.in. In the said matter the decision of the Hon'ble Information Commissioners in the matter of Shri K. Lall vs. Shri M. K. Bagri (Decision dated April 12, 2007), File. No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00112, is referred to:
"once information is placed on a website or in the public domain accessible to the citizens, that information cannot be said to be 'held' or 'under the control of the public authority and thus ceases to be an information accessible under the RTI Act."
(f) At Point No 8, the applicant stated that BYPL is a private company and does not claim to be a representative of the government as such how come it charges 'pension surcharge and on what grounds does BYPL impose DERC's regulations on consumers. Notwithstanding the fact that the applicant asked for explanations, the PIO, DERC informed that BYPL had been provided a licence under the relevant provision of Delhi Electricity Reforms Act 2000 and provided the link in the Commission's website as to where the licence was available and also informed the applicant regarding Chapter 2 of the Tariff Order which dealt with the issues of 'pension surcharge and the link of the same in DERC's website.
2. General: It is submitted for the information of the Hon'ble Commissioner that individual consumer Grievance Disposal does not fall within the purview of DERC's functions which are mandated under the provisions of Section 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003. DERC under the provisions of Section 42 and Section 46 of the Electricity Act has already put in place the mechanism of grievance redressal which has been further brought to the notice of the consumers vide DERC's Public Bulletin No. 13 a copy of which is enclosed at Annexure-1. A copy of which was also forwarded to the applicant. It is further informed that the Public Bulletin No.13 specifically mentions that cases of theft of electricity and unauthorized use of electricity do not fall within the purview of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forums so established by the Discoms as per the guidelines of DERC. In the whole matter of this subject RTI, it is noted that the various issues raised pertain to the applicant's grievances which he has sought to be addressed under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. In this context, it is Page 8 of 11 submitted that the Hon'ble CIC in various matters has directed that the said Act should not be used to for settlement of grievances and some relevant extracts of such decisions are given as under;
Hon'ble CIC's Decision in the matter of Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna v. LIC of India, Lucknow in Decision No. CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, the relevant portion of which is given as under, "The Appellant is informed that... redressal of grievance does not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act rather it is up to the Appellant to approach the correct grievance redressal forum...".
Moreover, in the matter of H. K Bansal v. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL in Decision No. CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated 29.01.2013, the Commission had observed as follows:
"The RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes and there are other appropriate forum(s) for resolving such matters."
3. 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 various provisions of furthering his case in the appropriate forum which dealt with matters of theft of electricity and unauthorized use of electricity. 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.
4. In concluding the PIO, DERC submits that an effort was made towards providing maximum information to the applicant which seemed related to his queries despite the fact the nature of queries were more in the nature of seeking clarifications and explanations on various matters.
5. The above submissions are hereby made in the matter of the CIC/DERCM/A/2023/148403 dated 16.08.2024, for kind consideration by the Hon'ble Information Commissioner."
The Respondent submitted that vide their letters dated 17.07.2023 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 Page 9 of 11 Commission observes that complete point-wise reply/information has already been informed to the Appellant as per his RTI application vide letters dated 17.07.2023 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. The 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 Page 10 of 11 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 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 11 of 11 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)