Posted On by &filed under Central Information Commission, Judgements.


Central Information Commission
Mr.Ramesh Chand Handa vs Delhi Electricity Regulatory … on 20 December, 2010
                         CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
                             Club Building (Near Post Office)
                           Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
                                  Tel: +91-11-26161796

                                                             Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003037/10514
                                                                     Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/003037
 Relevant Facts

emerging from the Appeal

Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Chand Handa
B-69, Ashoka Enclave,
Peragarhi, Rohtak Road,
Delhi-110087

Respondent : Public Information Officer
Under Secretary
Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas
Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi

Public Information Officer
Dept. of Power, Delhi Administration,
IP Estate, New Delhi

Public Information Officer
Assistant Secretary
Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission
Viniyamak Bhavan, Shivalik,
Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017

RTI application filed on : 05/08/2010(Both MoP&NG and Power Dept.)
PIO replied : 12/08/2010(MoP&NG) & 27/09/2010(DERC)
First appeal filed on : 06/09/2010(MoP&NG) & 27/09/2010(Power Dept.)
First Appellate Authority order : 18/10/2010
Second Appeal received on : 26/10/2010

Sl. Information Sought Reply of the Public Information Officer (PIO)

1. Is it safe and permissible to dig right over a The RTI Act does not cast on the public authority
11KV High Tension cable as good as 15 times any obligation to answer queries, as in this case, in
in a length of 450 feet and lay a High Pressure which the petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his
gas pipe line along and under the HT cable by questions with prefixes such as why, what, when
prodding. (MoP&NG) and whether.

2. Is it safe and permissible to dig right over a The RTI Act does not cast on the public authority
11KV High Tension cable as good as 15 times any obligation to answer queries, as in this case, in
in a length of 450 feet and lay a High Pressure which the petitioner attempts to elicit answers to his
gas pipe line along and under the HT cable by questions with prefixes such as why, what, when
prodding. (Power Dept.) and whether. (DERC) case was transferred.

Grounds for the First Appeal:

Incomplete and non-satisfactory reply from both the PIOs.

Order of the First Appellate Authority (FAA):
Case is transferred to DERC. Appeal is disposed. No order by the FAA, Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Gas.

Grounds for the Second Appeal:

No order by the FAA, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas.
Unsatisfactory order by FAA, Dept. of Power, Delhi Govt.

Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:

Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Chand Handa
Respondent : Absent;

The Appellant has sought an opinion of the PIO on hypothetical situation. The Appellant states
that Section-2(f) of the RTI Act mentions “Opinions, Advices etc”. Hence he believes that it entitles him
to seek the opinion or advice of the PIO. When the RTI Act is read in its entirety the term “Opinion,
Advices” refers to the Opinion, Advices available on the records. The Right to Information Act does not
envisage that PIOs would create information in response to RTI queries.

Decision:

The Appeal is dismissed.

This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.

Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
20 December 2010
(In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (ST)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.185 seconds.