Tariff fixation without disclosing the complete information and hearing the objections
6 May, 2015In an order dated 17.4.2015, the bench of Prof M. Sridhar Acharyulu, Information Commissioner at the Central Information Commission (CIC) had adjourned a case for May 11, 2015. A social activist, Anil Sood, had filed RTI application on 12-22013 seeking information on Distribution Transformer (DT) wise losses in respect of the the BRPL, BYL, TPDDL for the year 2011-12. The Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission (DERC) replied that comprehensive analysis of the losses in respect of DTs which record high losses while taking the energy supplied from the DTs will be submitted for further directions of the CIC.
The Complainant said that till date the DERC did not analyse the DT-wise losses and inform him. The complainant filed another RTI application on 10-11-2014 which was replied on 23-3-2015 and 4-3-2015 regarding the capitalization of fixed assets. The complainant questioned how the respondent authority has done the capitalization of fixed assets leading to revenue gap of Rs. 20,000 crores. In support of this, the complainant produced a document titled Statutory advice to the Govt of NCT of Delhi under Section 86(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The complainant said that till date there is no information and they specifically refused saying no separate not exists regarding capitalization, which is a false statement. The complainant alleged that Section 4(1)(3) disclosure is not happening. There has been a huge public outcry in the last 2-3 years against the tariff increase approved by the DERC in order to bridge the increasing gap between revenue requirements and revenue available from the sale of electricity. Not only have the tariffs increased significantly in the last 2 years but the residual revenue gap has also built up to alarming levels. Vide tariff order of August 2011, the tariff was increased by 22 The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. % across the board for consumer II categories.
The Complainant argued that the DERC has uploaded only the Executive summary instead of the issues that in its own opinion would impact its decision of tariff setting for the year 2015-16. The alleged that the Chief Secretary and Secretary (Power), GNCTD have miserably failed to act in the Public Interest without any plausible explanation and failed to fulfill the obligations cast upon them under section 4(1)(c) Every public authority shall publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public; Every public authority shall publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public; of the RTI Act despite knowing that the DERC acts under the Policy Directives of the State Government. The complainant demanded penalty to be imposed under section 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act and recommendation for disciplinary action under section 20(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him. of the RTI Act for refusing to comply with the mandate of section 4(1)(c) Every public authority shall publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public; Every public authority shall publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public; and obstructing the information without any reasonable cause and causing huge loss to the consumers of GNCTD, Delhi. The Complainant claimed that as 17-4-2015 is the last day for filing objections by the consumers, a show cause may be issued to the DERC along with directions to defer the proceedings on inviting suggestions and holding public hearings till the time the CIC hears the case. The Complainant contended before the CIC that if the DERC applies the tariff fixation without disclosing the complete information and hearing the objections, it would cause irreparable loss to the consumers in the capital city of Delhi and will result in undue benefits to the DISCOMS. The CIC admitted the complaint and issues notice to the DERC with directions to extend the date of receiving the objections from the consumers to a convenient date after disclosing the information under section 4(1)(c) Every public authority shall publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public; Every public authority shall publish all relevant facts while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect public; of the RTI Act as requested by the complainant. [Anil Sood v. DERC Important in CIC/SA/C/2015/000092]
Against the CIC order, the DERC went to the Delhi high court where the bench of Justice Rajiv Shakdher directed the DERC not to hold its public hearing for fixing power tariff till May 8. The DERC argued that as a regulator it fixes electricity tariff and the CIC has no powers to issue such orders as it can impact the functioning of another statutory body. The HC directed the CIC to hear the plea of DERC again saying “DERC and the RTI applicant will appear before the CIC on May 6. The CIC will conclude its hearing before May 8.”
It implies that the regulator cannot do the tariff fixation without disclosing the complete information and hearing the objections as the same may lead to irreparable loss to the consumers while giving undue benefits to the Electricity Companies.