CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

BLOCK IV, OLD JNU CAMPUS, NEW DELHI 110067

Appeal No.139/ICPB/2006 F.No.PBA/06/188 October 25, 2006 In the matter of Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 19. [Hearing on 23.10.2006 at 11 am] Appellant: Public authority: Shri V.K. Gaur Power Grid Corporation Shri B. Mishra, CPIO & AGM Shri I.C. Jaiswal, Executive Director & Appellate Authority Respondent Shri B. Mishra, AGM & CPIO Ms. Ranjana Gaddo, Chief Manager (Law) Shri J. Satish Kumar, Manager (CP) Appellant Shri V.K. Gaur Shri Vaibhav

Present :

FACTS: In this Decision, I am considering 6 appeals filed by the appellant in respect of his applications dated 27.2.2006 as detailed below: In the first application, the appellant sought for various details of the security personnel attached to the CMD. In the second application he sought the following information from CPIO on the following: a. Whether any legal cases against PWO have been filed in the jurisdiction of Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh. b. If so, who are the petitioner and respondents of the case. c. The writ petition is being heard. How many judges had herd the petitioner and weather the hearing are completed. d. What is date of last hearing of the case. e. What is the next date fixed for hearing. f. How much amount has been paid as fee to the lawyer. g. How many executives have ever attended the case or visited Chandigarh in connection with writ petition filed against PWO. What are the names of those executives who are attending this case in Chandigarh. h. How much amount of the corporation had been expended on TA/DA and hotel charges to the attending executives.

i. Whether the payment of fee and other expenditures like TA/DA have been met by PWO or corporation. j. Whether PWO & Powergrid are the separate entity as per bylaws of PWO. k. What are the names, designation and address of office bearers of PWO. The complete copies of their election and how long they are on the jobs of PWO. l. Copy of bylaws of PWO. m. All copies of minutes of meeting held till date of PWO. n. How much land have been given to Amity School. o. Whether the land has been given to Amity School free of cost or any charges have been taken from the school authorities. If yes, how much amount has been taken. Whether outsiders children are allowed to get admission in the school. What is the free structure of the school. Is there any difference to charge the school fee from the children of Powergrid employees and outsider. p. Whether the school authorities has appointed as teachers or any other jobs in the school from the dependents of the employees. If so, please attach the list of those employees whose dependents or wives have been given employment. q. What are the names of officer bearers of the school management body. r. Whether the construction costs of swimming pool have been included in the total cost of flats/bungalows. Who is bearing the maintenance costs of swimming pool whether PWO or Powergrid? In the third application, he sought information regarding details of vigilance cases w.e.f. 1.1.1992 to 31.12.2005 in PowerGrid i.e. for the last 13 years, besides details of many other related issues related to vigilance department. In the fourth application the appellant sought information regarding visits of VVIPs, including the President of India, the Prime Minister, judges, political leaders, bureaucrats etc. to the Corporation office, the cost involved in such visits, in connection with various functions/inauguration etc. and related matters. In the fifth application, the appellant sought the following information : 1. Details of foreign visits by the Directors and CMD of Powergrid during the last ten years, including name of countries, purpose of visits, total expenditure on each visit, details of local visits in each countries, whether any personal work was clubbed with the visits, whether any relatives/family members are staying in the visited country and whether the board members met them during the visits and significant achievements of these visits.

2. Whether any invitation is received by board members/CMD from any institute/company for their promotion or courtesy or business development purpose and expenditure thereon, and 3. Copies of approvals etc. In the 6th application, he sought for details of appointment in Powergrid on the recommendation of VVIPs, appointment of one candidate in HR Department after creating new post and designation in the corporation: Total number of candidates appointed in NR-1 since August 1991, and Whether reservation policy is followed. All the applications were rejected by the CPIO on 30.3.2006 on the ground that the appellant had sought the information in his capacity as an office bearer of the Union and not as an individual. On appeal, by decisions dated 16.5.2006, the appellate authority directed the CPIO to furnish the information sought for by the appellant treating the applications as ones filed by a citizen. Since the appellant did not receive any information from the CPIO, inspite of the directions of the AA, the appellant has filed these appeals. Comments were called for from the CPIO who has informed, that as per the directions of the AA, information in relation to all the applications were sent to the appellant by Speed Post on 29/5, 30/5, 31/5 but they were all returned undelivered with the remarks addressee transferred.

DECISION: All the appeals were heard together on 23.10.2006 when the CPIO, and the appellant were present. The CPIO informed, as per the directions of this Commission, that all the information were once again sent to the appellant in the month of September 2006 and the appellant also confirmed that he has received the information, but only in the month of October. The facts of the case reveal, that the CPIO had decided to reject the applications on the ground that the appellant had sought the information, not in his individual capacity, but in the capacity of an office bearer of the Union. Recently, this Commission has decided that even if information is sought by an office bearer of an Association/Union, the same should be treated as valid in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act, and therefore, the AA had correctly directed the CPIO to furnish the information, which he did without loss of time after the receipt of the decision of the AA. Since the appellant had not intimated the change of address, which he should have done, the letters containing the information had been returned. Thus there is no deliberate default/delay on the CPIO. Even though now the information is available with the appellant, during the hearing, he is yet to go through the information to find out whether the same is complete. Therefore, as indicated during the hearing, the appellant may go through the information furnished and if he is still aggrieved, he is at liberty to file a fresh appeal before the AA.

In view the above, nothing survives in these appeals, and as such they are closed. Let a copy of this decision be sent to the appellant and CPIO.

Sd/(Padma Balasubramanian) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy :

( L. C. Singhi ) Addl. Registrar Address of parties : 1. Shri B. Mishra, CPIO & AGM, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Corporate Officer Saudamini Plot No.2, Sector-29, Gurgaon-122001 2. Shri I.C. Jaiswal, Executive Director & Appellate Authority, Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. Corporate Officer Saudamini Plot No.2, Sector-29, Gurgaon-122001 3. Shri V.K. Gaur, President, PGETU, H.No. C-115, Gali No-8 New Kanti Nagar Extension New Delhi-110051