The RTI application sought information related to permissions for road digging, safety protocols mandated by PNGRB, inspection reports, restoration timelines, action against contractors for safety lapses and officials responsible for supervising PNG pipeline installation work in Ramesh Enclave, Kirari Suleman Nagar.
During the hearing, PNGRB said it had sought inputs from IGL and forwarded the information received to the applicant.
IGL submitted that it had provided available factual information to the regulator and that the applicability of the RTI Act to the company was sub judice before the Delhi High Court when the reply was furnished.
After examining the records, Information Commissioner Khushwant Singh Sethi found the regulator’s response inadequate.
“The Commission finds that most of the points sought by the appellant specifically pertain to PNGRB, and the PNGRB is the custodian of the sought information in most of the points,” the order said.
“The PNGRB seeking inputs from IGL is not acceptable, even for the points where information is held by their own public authority,” it added.The Commission noted that several queries related directly to PNGRB’s regulatory role, including safety guidelines, inspections and action that could be taken against IGL or its contractors for failure to follow prescribed safety measures.
During the hearing, PNGRB informed the Commission that regulations existed for taking action in cases involving safety lapses. It also stated that no complaints had been received regarding the pipeline work in the locality. The regulator further said its technical division was responsible for overseeing the quality and timely completion of the project.
Directing corrective action, the Commission ordered PNGRB to provide a revised point-wise consolidated reply, incorporating available factual information, relevant guidelines, regulations and website links.
It also directed the regulator to clearly state the factual position where information was unavailable or cite the relevant exemption under the RTI Act if disclosure was denied.
The Commission disposed of the appeal while noting that the issue of whether IGL is a public authority under the RTI Act would be reconsidered separately in light of a recent Delhi High Court judgement.