Right2Information

Right to Information – Master key to good governance

High Court Order in DISCOMS under RTI saga

Posted by rtiact2005 on October 3, 2006

 FROM: sroy1947@yahoo.com 
DATE: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 03:09:50 -0000 
SUBJECT: Fwd:  High Court Order in DISCOMS under RTI saga 
Delhi High Court raps CIC for passing orders without giving hearing to
persons likely to be affected. Furthermore - "speaking orders" to be
given by CIC in decisions. BTW: I was the 4th Respondent in this
matter and it was my "common ground" with Petitioners concerning 3rd
party issues that resulted in this speedy order.

--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, "sroy1947" <sroy1947@...> wrote:

Here is the actual order of Justice S.R.Bhat concerning DISCOMS as
public authority etc. etc. I was the 4th Respondent in this matter.
Its a fair order and a much needed kick in the pants for the CIC since
they had their own foolish notions on "third party" issues (qv. "Aruna
Roy vs. PMO" where CIC similarly refused to consider ME as a third 
party).

http://courtnic.nic.in/dhcorder/dhcqrydisp_o.asp?pn=207938&yr=2006

<snip>
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

  W.P.(C) 6833/2006

  N.D.P.L. ..... Petitioner
  Through Mr. A.N.Haksar, Sr. Adv. with
  Mr. Amit Kapur, Mr. Mansoor Ali,
  Mr.Shoket, Ms. Mini Rani and Mr. Udayan
  Jain, Advocates

versus

  THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMIS ..... Respondent
  Through Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Umang Pathak,
  Advocates
  Ms. Zubeda Begum, Adv. for GNCT

  AND

  W.P.(C) 6834/2006

  B.S.E.S.RAJDHANI POWER LTD. ..... Petitioner
  Through Mr. A.N.Haksar, Sr. Adv. with
  Mr. Amit Kapur, Mr. Mansoor Ali,
  Mr.Shoket, Ms. Mini Rani and Mr. Udayan
  Jain, Advocates

versus

  THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMIS ..... Respondent
  Through Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Umang Pathak,
  Advocates
  Ms. Zubeda Begum, Adv. for GNCT

  AND

  W.P.(C) 6835/2006

  B.S.E.S.YAMUNA POWER LTD. ..... Petitioner
  Through Mr. A.N.Haksar, Sr. Adv. with
  Mr. Amit Kapur, Mr. Mansoor Ali,
  Mr.Shoket, Ms. Mini Rani and Mr. Udayan
  Jain, Advocates

versus

  THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMIS ..... Respondent
  Through Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Ms. Umang Pathak,
  Advocates
  Ms. Zubeda Begum, Adv. for GNCT

CORAM:
   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT

   O R D E R
   21.09.2006

  1. The writ petitioners in these proceedings seek a direction to
quash the decision of the Central Information Commission, constituted
under the Right to Information Act, 2005, dated 16.3.2006. In that
decision the Commission opined that the DISCOMS, i.e. to BSES Rajdhani
Power Limited, BSES Yamuna Power Limited and the North Delhi Power
Limited, (Petitions in these writ proceedidngs) fall within the
definition of ?public authority? under Section 2(h) of the Right to
Information Act; certain consequential directions were also issued to
the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission.

  2. The common grievance of all the Petitioners in these cases is
that the impugned decision is not supported in law and more
fundamentally that it was arrived at without issuing notice or
granting opportunity of hearing to them. I am of the opinion that
since it is a common ground that the Petitioners were not issued
notice or granted opportunity of hearing. The Commission Central
Information Commission ought to re-consider the issue after granting
full hearing to all the concerned parties likely to be effected by its
decision.

  3. The parties in these proceedings agree to the above course of
action. The parties are therefore directed to appear before the
Central Information Commission on 16.10.2006 for directions. The
Commission shall issue notice to such other parties whose interests
may be affected or whose views may be relevant. After hearing the
submissions of all the parties, the Commission shall issue a speaking
order dealing with the contentions raised. The entire process shall be
completed as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than
by 30.11.2006. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.

  4. In view of the above orders the consequential directions issued
by the State Government and the DERC need not be complied with; it is
open to the said authorities to issue necessary orders in light of the
fresh decision of the Central Information Commission.

  The writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above.

  Order dasti under the signature of Court Master.

  S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J
  SEPTEMBER 21, 2006

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: