Receiving bills for services you’re not getting can be frustrating. This is especially true for essential utilities like water. Many citizens face situations where they are charged for water supply, but the water itself never reaches their homes. In such instances, the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, offers a powerful tool to seek clarity and accountability from government bodies. This article examines a case where an appellant sought information regarding water bills despite not receiving water, and what the Central Information Commission (CIC) ruled.
Background: What Information Was Sought
The appellant in this case had obtained a water connection for his wife from the Delhi Jal Board (DJB). Despite lodging numerous complaints, he continued to receive water bills. However, the crucial issue was that no water was actually being supplied to his residence. To understand the basis of these charges, the appellant filed an application under the RTI Act with the DJB. He attached a copy of a water bill he had received to his application, providing concrete evidence of his grievance. The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the DJB responded to the application, providing some information, but this did not fully resolve the appellant’s concerns.
How the Public Authority Responded
The Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) provided some information in response to the RTI application. However, the nature of this information and whether it satisfactorily addressed the appellant’s core grievance became a point of contention, leading to further proceedings. The DJB’s stance, as presented during the hearing, was that the appellant was being charged only service charges, not water consumption charges, due to the lack of adequate water pressure. They claimed this was in accordance with their rules and regulations.
The CIC Hearing: What Happened
The matter eventually reached the Central Information Commission (CIC) for a hearing. During the proceedings, the respondent from the DJB clarified their position. They submitted that the reason water was not reaching the appellant’s house was due to insufficient water pressure. Consequently, they argued, only service charges were being levied, as per the prevailing rules. They explicitly stated that no water charges were being levied, and this was evident from the water bill copy submitted appellant. To substantiate their claim, the respondent presented a relevant portion of a DJB circular detailing the implementation of the Delhi Water and Sewer (Tariff & Metering) Regulations, 2012. This circular, they contended, supported their practice of levying service charges even when water supply was intermittent or absent due to technical reasons like low pressure. The respondent emphasized that payment of the lowest slab of service charges was a mandatory requirement under existing rules, irrespective of occasional disruptions in water delivery.
The CIC Order and Its Significance
After considering the arguments and the evidence presented sides, the Central Information Commission (CIC) delivered its verdict. The Commission rejected the appeal. The CIC found that the DJB had supplied adequate information to the appellant regarding the charges being levied. The Commission’s reasoning was that the DJB had indeed provided the information requested, explaining that the charges were for service and not for actual water consumption, due to technical issues with pressure. While the CIC upheld the DJB’s response in terms of information disclosure, it did offer a piece of advice to the appellant. The Commission suggested that the appellant should take up the issue of the appropriateness of levying service charges when the service (water supply) was not being rendered, directly with the concerned authority within the DJB. This implies that while the RTI Act mandates disclosure, the resolution of the underlying grievance might require further administrative action or a separate complaint to the relevant department.
Key Lessons for RTI Applicants
- Understand the Difference Between Service Charges and Consumption Charges: In many utility services, there are separate charges for the infrastructure and maintenance (service charges) and for the actual usage (consumption charges). The DJB’s argument highlighted this distinction. When filing an RTI, be specific about what charges you are questioning.
- Focus on Information Disclosure Under RTI: The primary purpose of the RTI Act is to provide access to information held authorities. While the CIC can direct disclosure and penalize for non-compliance, it may not always adjudicate on the fairness of a policy or charge if the information sought has been provided.
- Identify the Correct Authority for Grievance Redressal: If the information provided reveals a policy or practice you believe is unfair, the RTI Act might guide you to the right department, but the ultimate resolution might lie with that department’s grievance redressal mechanism. The CIC’s advice to take up the issue with the ‘concerned authority’ emphasizes this.
How to File a Similar RTI Application
- Identify the Public Authority: Determine which government department or agency is responsible for the service you are inquiring about (e.g., Delhi Jal Board for water).
- Draft Your Application Clearly: State your name, address, and contact details. Clearly articulate the information you are seeking. Be specific about dates, bill numbers, or any other relevant details.
- Attach Supporting Documents: If you have copies of bills, complaints, or any other relevant documents, attach them to your application.
- Submit and Pay the Fee: Submit your application to the Public Information Officer (PIO) of the concerned authority and pay the prescribed RTI application fee (usually ₹10 order or demand draft, payable to the Accounts Officer of the department).
Sample RTI question you can use:
Under Section 6(1) and Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, please provide a copy of the departmental rules and regulations that govern the levying of water bills in cases where water is not being supplied to the connection holder’s premises due to low pressure or any other technical reason. Please also provide a detailed breakdown of the charges levied in my water bill dated [Date of Bill], bearing consumer number [Your Consumer Number], and clarify which portion pertains to service charges and which, if any, pertains to actual water consumption.
Conclusion
This case highlights that while the RTI Act is a powerful tool for transparency, understanding its scope and limitations is crucial. Citizens can certainly use RTI to obtain details about their bills and the rules governing them. However, when faced with a situation where a service is not being rendered but charges are being levied, the RTI might lead you to the information that explains the practice, but the resolution of the grievance itself may require further engagement with the relevant administrative body. Always be precise in your RTI requests, and if the information provided points to an unfair practice, be prepared to escalate your complaint through the appropriate channels.
