Moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - prohibition on institution or continuation of proceedings during moratorium - exclusive jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal under Section 60(5) of the IBC - interplay between IBC moratorium and regulatory forum jurisdictionMoratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code - prohibition on institution or continuation of proceedings during moratorium - Effect of moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC on the Commission's ability to entertain the petition. - HELD THAT: - The petitioning company is subject to insolvency proceedings and an NCLT order dated 29.8.2018 has appointed a Resolution Professional and imposed moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC. Section 14(1) prohibits the institution or continuation of suits or proceedings, and related enforcement or disposal of assets, during the moratorium. Taking note of the NCLT order and the statutory bar in Section 14, the Commission found that it cannot entertain the present petition filed under Section 79(1)(f) of the Electricity Act while the moratorium is in force. The Commission's inability to proceed is founded on the statutory prohibition rather than on the merits of the underlying contractual disputes. [Paras 7]The Commission cannot entertain the petition while the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC is in effect.Exclusive jurisdiction of the National Company Law Tribunal under Section 60(5) of the IBC - Availability of alternate forum and appropriate remedy before NCLT during moratorium. - HELD THAT: - Section 60(5) vests the National Company Law Tribunal with jurisdiction to entertain applications or proceedings by or against the corporate debtor and to decide claims or questions of law or fact arising out of insolvency resolution or liquidation. In view of this provision, the Commission observed that the petitioner is at liberty to approach the NCLT for appropriate interim directions in relation to the matters which are affected by the insolvency proceedings, including reliefs sought that may be barred by the moratorium. [Paras 8]Petitioner may approach the NCLT under Section 60(5) of the IBC for appropriate interim directions.Interplay between IBC moratorium and regulatory forum jurisdiction - Whether the Commission should decide its territorial or subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute while moratorium is in force. - HELD THAT: - Although the petitioner contended that the Commission has jurisdiction under Section 79(1)(f) because the generating station is located in a different State and supplies power to Uttar Pradesh distribution licensees, the Commission declined to express any view on jurisdiction. The reason given is that the moratorium under Section 14 prevents the Commission from proceeding with the petition, and thus a determination on jurisdiction was not undertaken. [Paras 10]No view is expressed on the Commission's jurisdiction while the moratorium under the IBC is operative.Procedural compliance for interim application - Requirement to deposit filing fee for the interim application. - HELD THAT: - The petitioner had not deposited the filing fee for the interim application (I.A. No. 20 of 2019). The Commission directed the petitioner to deposit the filing fee within one week of issuance of the order, treating the non-deposit as a procedural defect to be rectified notwithstanding the disposal of the petition on moratorium grounds. [Paras 11]Petitioner directed to deposit the filing fee for the interim application within one week.Final Conclusion: The petition and the interim application are disposed of because the NCLT order imposing moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC bars continuation of proceedings before the Commission; petitioner may seek appropriate interim relief from the NCLT under Section 60(5) of the IBC; no view is taken on the Commission's jurisdiction; petitioner to deposit the interim application filing fee within one week.

Access to information placed in public domain - information held by or under the control of public authority - suo-motu dissemination obligations of public authorities - pricing of voluntarily disclosed information - scope of Section 2(j) of the RTI Act - interaction between Section 4 dissemination provisions and RTI access regime - overriding effect of Section 22 of the RTI ActInformation held by or under the control of public authority - access to information placed in public domain - interaction between Section 4 dissemination provisions and RTI access regime - pricing of voluntarily disclosed information - Whether information voluntarily placed in the public domain by a public authority (including on a website or as a priced publication) remains 'information held by or under the control of' that authority for purposes of access under the RTI Act and subject to the Act's fee provisions. - HELD THAT: - The Commission held that Section 2(j) and the dissemination obligations in Section 4 distinguish between information that is 'held by or under the control of' a public authority (and therefore accessible under the RTI Act) and information which the authority has voluntarily placed in the public domain. The Act contemplates progressive suo-motu dissemination so that less information remains subject to RTI requests. Where information has been voluntarily disseminated (including via internet or priced publications) the public authority may determine the mode and cost of access to that information; such voluntarily disclosed information is not covered by the RTI Act's fee and supply provisions. The respondents were therefore entitled to require access to the published/online/inspected material as per their prescribed pricing and to inform the appellant how to obtain that material rather than supply it under RTI procedures. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14]Information placed in the public domain by the public authority is not 'accessible under this Act' as information 'held by or under the control of' the authority for purposes of RTI fee and supply provisions; the authority may prescribe mode and price of access.Overriding effect of Section 22 of the RTI Act - pricing of voluntarily disclosed information - scope of Section 2(j) of the RTI Act - Whether the pricing of access to information voluntarily disclosed by the public authority conflicts with the overriding effect of Section 22 of the RTI Act. - HELD THAT: - The Commission examined Section 22 and concluded that there is no inconsistency between Section 22 and the authority's pricing of voluntarily disclosed information because the RTI Act's prescribed fees apply only to information 'held by or under the control of' the public authority and accessed under the RTI mechanism. Information placed suo-motu in the public domain falls under Section 4's scheme and the authority may make such information available free or at a prescribed cost. Consequently, differing fees for voluntarily disclosed information do not amount to inconsistency with Section 22. [Paras 15]Section 22 does not invalidate the public authority's power to prescribe pricing for information it has voluntarily placed in the public domain; there is no inconsistency between the provisions.Suo-motu dissemination obligations of public authorities - access to information placed in public domain - Whether the Central Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority acted lawfully in directing the appellant to obtain the information by paying the prescribed price or by following the prescribed procedure for inspection/public access. - HELD THAT: - Applying the distinction between information held under control and information voluntarily placed in the public domain, the Commission found that the CPIO and the AA correctly informed the appellant that the requested records were available in the public domain and indicated the mode of access (including inspection or priced copies) as per the Ministry's procedure. Their conduct conformed to the Act's scheme of encouraging suo-motu dissemination and allowing public authorities to prescribe access modalities for such material. [Paras 3, 4, 7, 16]The CPIO and the Appellate Authority acted in accordance with the Act in directing the appellant to access the voluntarily disclosed information through the prescribed paid/inspection route rather than supplying it under RTI fee rules.Final Conclusion: The appeal is dismissed: information voluntarily placed in the public domain by a public authority is not subject to the RTI Act's regime for information 'held by or under the control' of the authority and may be made available by the authority in the mode and at the price it prescribes; Section 22 does not render such pricing inconsistent with the RTI Act; the CPIO and AA acted within the Act in directing the appellant to obtain the material through the prescribed public-domain access procedure.