CIC: The validity period of the licence of the DISCOM is going to expire in 2029/2028 and bids will be invited soon; Respondent is advised put a condition in the contract that the licencee company will be a Public Authority under the RTI Act

Information sought:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.10.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:

“Please provide me complete and detailed information together with all related correspondence/file-notings/documents etc. on under-mentioned aspects:

1. Date from which free electricity up-to 200 units is started given in Delhi for each residential meter providing also complete information together with all related correspondence/file-notings/documents etc. on decision taken to provide up-to 200 units of electricity in Delhi for each residential meter

2. Which authority (Delhi Government or Power Distribution Company or DERC or somebody else) is bearing funds required for providing free electricity u-to 200 units in Delhi for each residential meter

3. Number of total residential electricity meters with consumption up-to 200 units of electricity

4. Number of residential electricity meters with consumption up-to 200 units of electricity provided free electricity in Delhi

5. Year-wise loss for providing free electricity up-to 200 units in Delhi for residential meters ever since 200 units of electricity was started to be provided in Delhi for each residential meter

6. Year-wise profit/loss in electricity distribution in Delhi ever since free electricity up-to 200 units is provided in Delhi for each residential meter

7. Authority (Delhi Government or Power Distribution Company or DERC somebody else) authorized to decide revision of power-rates in Delhi mentioning if approval of Delhi government is necessary for revision of power-tariff in Delhi

8. Rates of power-tariff in Delhi separately mentioning fixed charges ever since free electricity up-to 200 units is provided in Delhi for each residential meter, proving also file-notings/correspondence/documents etc. on last revision of (a) tariff (b) fixed charges for electricity in Delhi

9. Rates of concessional power-tariffs if any, for religious institutions like Hindu Temples, Jain Temples, Churches, Gurudwaras, Mosques, Parsi Temples and other places of worship of different religions mentioning procedure to apply for such concessional power-tariffs for places of worship of different religions

10. Number of places of worship of each of the religion separately for each religion provided concessional rates of power-tariff in Delhi

11. Any other related information

12. File-notings on movement of this RTI application”

The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the Appellant on 25.10.2024 stating as under:

“Reply to Point No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: The information sought in RTI is not available with DERC and the same may be obtained from Department of Power, GONCTD. Further, it is informed that DERC is constrained from transferring the RTI application to the concerned distribution company in view of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's Order dated. 23.04.2009 in the matter of DERC vs. CIC & Ors. (W.P.(C)6735/2007), (Copy enclosed at Annexure-I).

Reply to Point No. 7: As per Regulation 86 (1) (a) of Electricity Act, 2003 defines the function of State Commission to determine the tariff for generation, supply, transmission and wheeling of electricity, wholesale, bulk or retail, as the case may be, within the State.

Reply to Point No. 8, 9, 10: The Category-wise Tariff is mentioned in Tariff Schedule read with "Other Terms and Conditions" of Tariff Order and same is available in every Tariff Order, The Tariff Orders are available on the website of the Commission i.e. https://www.derc.gov.in/tarriff-orders. Further, the attention of the applicant is sought to Para 8 of Annexure of DOPT Ο.Μ. Νο1/69/2007-IR dated 27 February 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 to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions."

Reply to Point No. 11, 12: Vague queries. Copy of Public Awareness Bulletin no. 13 is attached as Annexure - II and if so, required the applicant may approach accordingly.”

Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.11.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 29.11.2024, upheld the reply of CPIO.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:

 The following were present:-

Appellant: Absent

Respondent: Shri Chandra Kant Roy, Joint Secretary-cum-CPIO, Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission, Shri Darpan Sharma, Personal Assistant (Respondent No. 1) and Shri Sanjay Kumar, CPIO/SO, Department of Power (Respondent No. 2), appeared in person.

The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that they had filed detailed written submissions dated 04.02.2025 stating complete facts of the case and requested the Commission to place the same on record, copy of the same was sent to the appellant. The relevant paras of the written submission are reproduced as under:

(a) “Matter refers to RTI Application dated 06.10.2024 and 08.10.2024 of the appellant, in which 12 points has been asked for information.

(b) The issues at point nos. 1 to 6 of the applicant were with specific reference to Subsidies being provided to Electricity Consumers in the NCT of Delhi. The information seemed to pertain to the Department of Power, GNCTD and was transferred accordingly. Since the specific information pertaining to the number of households getting subsidy etc. would be available only with the concerned distribution companies, the RTI applicant was also informed about DERC's constraint from transferring the RTI to the Discoms and a copy of the relevant Hon'ble High Court of Delhi's Order dated 23.04.2009 was also provided to the applicant. In this context, it would also be prudent to reproduce the provisions under Section 65 of Electricity Act 2005 as given below:

"If the State Government requires the grant of any subsidy to any consumer or class of consumers in the tariff determined by the State Commission under section 62, the State Government shall, notwithstanding any direction which may be given under section 108, pay, within in advance in the manner as may be specified, by the State Commission the amount to compensate the person affected by the grant of subsidy in the manner the State Commission may direct, as a condition for the licence or any other person concerned to implement the subsidy provided for by the State Government: Provided that no such direction of the State Government shall be operative if the payment is not made in accordance with the provisions contained in this section and the tariff fixed by State Commission shall be applicable from the date of issue of orders by the Commission in this regard."

(c) At Point No 7, the applicant asked about the authority authorized to decide revision of power-rates in Delhi and further sought clarification if approval of Delhi Government is necessary for revision of power tariff in Delhi. In this context, the applicant was informed that "as per Regulation 86(1) (a) of Electricity Act, 2003 defines the function of State Commission to determine the tariff for generation, supply, transmission and wheeling of electricity, wholesale, bulk or retail, as the case may be, within the State." The PIO has stated information as available and it is for the applicant to interpret the same accordingly since providing explanations etc./clearing the applicant's doubts etc. are not within the purview of the PIO.

(d) The applicant's query with reference to Point Nos, 8, 9 and 10 are with reference to the concessional rate of tariff for places of worship of each religion and the number of places of worship of each religion separately. In response, the applicant was informed that "The Category-wise Tariff is mentioned in Tariff Schedule read with "Other Terms and Conditions" of Tariff Order and same is available in Tariff Order (of distribution licensees i.e. BRPL, BYPL, TPDDL etc.), The Tariff Orders are available on the website of the Commission i.e. https://www.derc.gov.in/tarriff-orders." The applicant in both of his appeals has stated that the information is not available in the Commission's website. The First Appellate Authority vide his Order 29.11.2024 had forwarded the screen shots of the DERC website to counter the averment of the applicant. However, it seems till date that the RTI Applicant has failed to look up the same and has such filed this instant appeal before the Hon'ble Information Commissioner. The copy of the screen shots are hereby attached once again as Annexure-1 towards reinforcing the reply of the PIO, DERC.

In this context it would also be pertinent to quote from the First Appellate Authority, DERC's Order in the matter dated 29.11.2024;

"Para 4 of FAA Order dated 29.11.2024"

"4. With regard to the appellant's contention with respect to Point Nos. 8, 9 and 10, it is observed that, the appellant had raised queries which are voluminous in nature and neither does it pertain to DERC. It must be understood by the appellant that DERC is not an inheritor of the erstwhile DESU/DVB and is a separate entity engaged in the discharge of quasi-judicial duties. It is therefore not a custodian of information of individual connections, number of worship places of different type of faiths etc. It appears that till the date of filing the instant appeal, the appellant has not familiarized himself with the contents of Section 86 of the Electricity Act. Had he done so he would have desisted from filing this appeal. The Section 86 of Electricity Act 2003, gives out the powers and functions of a State Electricity Regulatory Commission. This precludes, being custodian of specific information related to individual connection etc. However, the extract of Section 86 of the Electricity Act 2003 is attached herewith at Annexure-l, for the ease of the RTI applicant".

Further, the applicant was also informed about the Para 8 of Annexure of DOPT O.M. No. 1/69/2007-IR dated 27 February 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 to interpret information; or to solve the problems raised by the applicants; or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions.”

It is also submitted that had the appellant tried to find out /read the Other Terms and Conditions of the Tariff Order his query with regard to the tariff in respect of places of worship would have been answered and it is apparent that he has not done this exercise. His query was also with regard to number of different places of worship and separate categories of tariff being imposed on them etc. a type of information which is not available in DERC.

It would also be pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble CIC in the matter of Shri K. Lall vs. Shri M. K. Bagri (Decision dated April 12, 2007), File No. CIC/AT/A/2007/00112, where in the Hon'ble CIC has stated as under:

"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."

The applicant at Point No. 8 had also asked for file noting /correspondence /documents etc on last revision of (a) tariff (b) fixed charges for electricity in Delhi. In this context it would be pertinent to mention that issue of the Tariff Order is quasi-judicial process of the Delhi Electricity Commission. In this context Section 95. of Electricity Act 2003 is reproduced below:

"All proceedings before the Appropriate Commission shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code and the Appropriate Commission shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of sections 345 and 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973"

With reference to the above we may draw precedence from the matter of Shri Vijay Kamble Vs Customs Department, Mumbai (F. No. CIC/AT/A/2008/01466 dated 23.03.2009). Wherein the Hon’ble CIC had given a decision as under;

"The principal factor, which needs to be addressed, nevertheless, is whether the proceedings before Commissioner of Customs admittedly a quasi-judicial proceeding would admit of action under the RTI Act. It has been the decision of the Commission in Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT); Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2006/00586; Date of Decision: 18.09.2007 that once it is established that a certain information requested by an applicant is related to a quasi-judicial proceeding, RTI Act cannot be invoked to access the information related to that proceeding"

(e) At Point No. 11 & 12, the applicant asked for any other related information and file notings on movement of his RTI. The same are vague queries. The RTI Act 2005 relates to providing information as available and as such the question of movement of files for replying to an RTI Application is redundant. It is for the PIO to either provide the information requisitioned if the same is available, alternately the PIO may deny the information if the same is exempted under the applicable clause of Section 8(1) of the RTI Act 2005. As such requirement the file-notings and file movement for replying to a RTI application is superfluous.

3. In concluding, the PIO, DERC respectfully submits that he has provided all available information which seemed closely related to the queries of the applicant to the best of his ability.”

The respondent No. 2 inter alia submitted that they had already provided point-wise reply to the appellant vide letter dated 23.10.2024:

“Kindly refer to your online RTI application (Registration No. POWER/R/2024/60102) received in this department dated 06.10.2024 for providing the information under RTI Act, 2005. The Information sought is given below:

1. The copy of relevant order is enclosed.

2. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi allocated fund for the scheme "subsidy to Consumers" under the requisite Budget Head.

 3. No such data available in this department.

4. Same as above point No. 3. 5. Same as above point No. 3.

6. Same as above point No. 3.

7. Sought information pertains to DERC. Hence, your RTI application has already been transferred to DERC as per provisions of sub section (3) of Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005.

8. Same as above point No. 7.

9. Same as above point No. 7.

10. Same as above point No. 7.”

The respondent No. 2 submitted that they vide email dated 19.02.2023 offered inspection of records to the appellant related to the documents available with them on point Nos. 1 to 6 of the RTI application.

Decision:

The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondents and perusal of the records, noted that the appellant has filed two online RTI applications POWER/R/2024/60102 and DERCO/R/2024/60174 both dated 06.10.2024 addressed to Power Department, GNCTD/Respondent No. 2 and Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC)/Respondent No. 1, respectively and sought identical information.

As per the submissions made by the respondents, the information sought on point No. 1 to 6 of the RTI application pertained to Respondent No. 2 i.e. Department of Power and information sought on point Nos. 7 to 12 of the RTI application pertained to Respondent No. 1 i.e. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC).

The issues raised in points 1 to 6 of the RTI application pertain to electricity subsidies which were replied by the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 stated that they had provided point-wise reply to the appellant. They further offered inspection of records to the appellant related to the records available with them through email dated 19.02.2025, a copy of the email was placed on record.

In view of the above and in the interest of justice, the Respondent No. 2 is directed to facilitate inspection of available and relevant records as per the query raised on point Nos. 1 to 6 of the RTI application on a mutually decided date & time, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Before inspection, the respondent should specify the list of documents/files which they are offering for inspection. The intimation of the date and time of the inspection shall be provided to the Appellant by the CPIO telephonically and in writing well in advance. In the process of facilitating the inspection and providing subsequent copies of the record the CPIO is at liberty to withhold/redact third party information or any other information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) of the RTI Act. Copy of documents that the Appellant desires during the inspection shall be provided by the CPIO on payment of requisite fees as per the Rules/Act.

As regards the information sought on point Nos. 7 to 12 of the RTI application, the respondent No. 1 submitted that they had provided point-wise reply to the appellant as per the records available with them vide letter dated 25.10.2024.

On point no. 7 of the RTI application, the respondent No. 1 submitted that the applicant asked about the authority competent to decide revision of powerrates in Delhi and related information. They informed the appellant that "as per Regulation 86(1) (a) of Electricity Act, 2003 defines the function of State Commission to determine the tariff for generation, supply, transmission and wheeling of electricity, wholesale, bulk or retail, as the case may be, within the State." The CPIO stated that information as available has been provided and it is for the applicant to interpret the same accordingly since providing explanations etc./ clearing the applicant's doubts etc. are not within the purview of the CPIO.

As regards point Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of the RTI, the respondent No. 1 informed that “The Category-wise Tariff is mentioned in Tariff Schedule read with ‘Other Terms and Conditions’ of Tariff Order and same is available in Tariff Order (of distribution licensees i.e. BRPL, BYPL, TPDDL etc.), The Tariff Orders are available on the website of the Commission i.e. https://www.derc.gov.in/tarriff-orders.” However, they did not provide proper path wherein the information was available in public domain.

The respondent No. 1 pleaded that there is no concession on the tariff charges for religious places as they are charged as per rates applicable for domestic connections, the tariff schedule of which is available in public domain. Thus, there is no discrimination on the tariff charges on the basis of religion as anticipated by the appellant.

The respondent No. 1 has filed detailed written submissions dated 04.02.2025, copy of the same is marked to the appellant and contents of the which are reproduced in the preceding paragraphs.

It is important to note that only such information can be supplied under the Act that is available and exists in the form as is held by the public authority or is held under the control of the public authority. The Central Public Information Officer is not supposed to create information that is not a part of the record of the public authority.

The Commission observes that The Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) (Respondent No. 1) has provided point-wise reply on point Nos. 7 to 12 of the RTI application. Perusal of the same appears to be appropriate except on point Nos. 9 and 10 of the RTI application. The appellant in his second appeal claimed that information sought on the above points is not available in the public domain. Therefore, Respondent No. 1 is directed to provide the proper path of the website besides the URL where the information sought on point Nos. 9 and 10 of the RTI application is available on their website within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Further, DERC/Respondent No.1 is advised to enhance public awareness by ensuring that tariff structures and regulatory policies are easily accessible and comprehensible on their official website.

The Commission observes that while many aspects of governance in electricity distribution fall under private sector, regulatory authorities like DERC and the Department of Power must take proactive measures to bridge the information gap.

The private power distribution companies (Discoms) interact directly with consumers, the Commission strongly recommends that future licensing agreements with Discoms include a provision explicitly bringing them under the ambit of public authorities under the RTI Act for consumer-related queries. This will enhance transparency and accountability in the electricity sector.

Considering the public interest in consumer rights, the Commission advises the Department of Power and DERC to undertake proactive disclosure of information, including:

• Publishing updated lists of electricity subsidies and eligibility criteria.

• Providing an interactive FAQ section on their websites to address common public concerns.

• Ensuring tariff orders and related policy decisions are made accessible in user-friendly formats.

Advisory under Section 25 (5) of the RTI Act

Further, it is noted that validity period of the licence of the DISCOM is going to expire in 2029/2028 and bids will be invited soon because the evaluation and award process etc are time consuming, hence, for the next bid or for any extension of the present licence beyond the validity period, the respondent authority is advised put a condition in the contract that the licencee company will be a Public Authority under the RTI Act with the exemptions also being available to it. It is not out of place to recall that prior to its privatization, the electricity distribution work was done by an agency which was a public authority. The Right to Information has been guaranteed through an Act passed by the Parliament, which unfortunately has got extinguished through an administrative and contract related mechanism by the Executive possibly due to an oversight while privatizing the business of electricity distribution sometime in year 2009-10. The Discoms have contested decision of CIC declaring them as public authority and matter is pending before Hon’ble High Court of Delhi; hence, no interference is warranted from the Commission in that court case. However, opportunity is presenting itself at the time of the next round of bidding/renewal for licence to restore the Rights of the Citizens, which must be used by the Government. A copy of this order may be placed before the competent authority for its compliance. The FAA to ensure compliance of this order.

The appeal is dismissed accordingly.

Vinod Kumar Tiwari

Information Commissioner

Citation: Subhash Chandra Agrawal v. Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission and Department of Power, CIC/DERCM/A/2025/100521; Date of Decision : 28.03.2025