Brief of the Case

The Complainant Mrs. Kiran Agarwala sent a complaint to the Chief Information Commissioner which was received on 21-11-06. She wanted information regarding the action taken on her petitions dated 8-3-06 and dated 21-07-06 regarding new power connection to her proposed SSI unit. She submitted a petition to the Executive Engineer, Kokrajhar Electrical Division, ASEB, Kokrajhar dated 5-9-06 under the R.T.I. Act, 2005 seeking for the information. When she did not receive the information on time, she submitted the application before the Commission.

Submission by the parties.

The Executive Engineer stated that the Senior Manager, Kokrajhar Electrical Division sent the information to the Complainant vide letter dated 27-11-06.

Shri Agarwala acknowledged the receipt of the letter but complained before the Commission that the information is not complete as the list of new connections given after the Complainant submitted her application for connection on 8-3-06 was not given. The Executive Engineer stated before the Commission that the application of the petitioner would be taken care of once the power transformer no. 2 is installed. He further stated that there are some technical difficulties in giving commercial power line connection to the SSI unit as the applicant did not submit land document, certificate from the Industry Deptt., and No Objection Certificate from the Gaon Panchayat. More importantly, Shri Shyamlal Agarwala, the husband of the petitioner who has represented the petitioner to-day in the hearing is a defaulter and there is a decree of the Civil Court for payment of his pending dues and as such it becomes difficult to consider the prayer of the petitioner for new Commercial Connection in the name of his wife.

Decision of the Commission

The Commission, on careful consideration of the facts and hearing both the parties found that there was delay in responding to the petitioner’s application for information. The Commission observed that the Executive Engineer had just assumed his charge only this month and he has no knowledge of the petition. He is also superannuating at the end of this month. Under these circumstances the Commission refrained from taking any penal action against him for the delay.
The Commission however directed him to examine the application of the complainant on merit and inform her of the decision within 15 days from the date of this order.