Judgment by hon'ble high court of delhi
Surender Oberoi
(Querist) 27 June 2012
This query is : Resolved
A case was pending before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi - Whether NDPL is a public authority ? Has the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi decided and/or given the judgment. A copy of the judgement is prayed from Hon'ble members ? Whether NDPL is under the purview of RTI Act ?
N.K.Assumi
(Expert) 28 June 2012
Better post proper query.
Tajobsindia
(Expert) 28 June 2012
Order of CIC which was challenged before D HC and D HC subsequent Order in Writ are mentioned below.
1. CIC order link is mentioned below
http://rti.india.gov.in/cic_decisions/Decision_22122006_3.pdf
2. Above CIC Order challenged under Writ jurisdiction before D HC and D HC Order is mentioned below;
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 proceedings) 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 as 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
mm
25
Surender Oberoi
(Querist) 29 June 2012
Mr Tajobsindia, Sir, a ton of thanks. You have rightly understood my query and replied suitably. May I ask further, what happened further ie after 21.09.2006 in the subject case ?
