Adv.for the complainant – None.
Adv.for the O.Ps - None.
Date of filing of the case – 30.04.2014
Date of order of the case - 22.08.2014.
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara,President.
The fact of the case is that the complainant made applications respectively on dated 07.07.2013 and 18.07.2013 on certain information under RTI Act and paid the statutory consideration as envisaged.
2. The complainant also stated the question sought regarding percentage of Nutrition provided with meals is miserable insufficient and managed one and in further enquiry the P.I.O- D.I/cum- Block Education Officer, Titilagarh, being also the appellate authority failed in providing the requisite information citing the Block Education Officer has not got no power to inspect all the records of St. Anne’s School invoking Section 6(3) of RTI Act.
3. The complainant also stated, the P.I.O on the helm, is ignorant of law, neither knows the way to collect information nor transferred the application within time period under RTI Act. Even the Block Education Officer does not know the power he wields under his authority to garner or rendering service in day to day official procedure, for which the complainant sustained irreparable loss in awakening the social cause, thus suffered mental harassment and agony. Made appeal, for compensation that the forum deems fit and relied on affidavit, OIC/SIC Appeal No.-1568/2012 & letter No.15602/SME/0/07/13.
4. On notice the opposite party appeared and filed version admitting the application and its content and also admitting that the complainant is informed on officer records and Non-supply of staff to accompanying inspection of the records. The complainant’s stand in complaint goes against the Education Department of Odisha Govt and print & electronic media coverage is unwarranted. The information is supplied on MDM having average protein and Kilo caloric content and the office is ignorant of nutrition value of MDM. Again averring St. Annie’s School has not provided the information, so the O.P is unable to furnish same. The opposite party relied on letters of various dates from 28.07.2013 to 12.09.2013.
5. Heard the complainant and P.I.O in present. Perused all the documents and records therein and gone through the submissions and affidavit of the complainant.
6. It is admitted the application is made on 7.07.2013 and 18.07.2013 and paying Rs 10/- as statutory fees he is a consumer at par u/s.2(d)(ii) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Fair Air Engineers Pvt.Ltd Vs. N.K.Modi., III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC) in which it is held that the section-3 of C.P.Act envisages that the provisions of the Act are in addition to and are not in derogation of any other law in force.
7. We find that in application under RTI Act, the petitioner did not suffer any procedure inconsistency rather the response is inconsistent and not regulated as per the act, rules and regulations. In entire proceeding the PIO is not aware of the laws in RTI Act nor as the competent Block Education Officer to exercise the rights conferred on.The RTI application is not transferred to the right authority as per the provision nor attempt made to purvey the required information in right format.
8. The version filed by the opposite party, does not plead any sense. The applicant has tendered in every form & the answers not to be-in- ways in and ways out. The Block Education Officer has not exercised the power, to contain the irregularity involved in mushrooming of Private Schools in disorganized manner and the contentions of the petitioner found in merit. The officer has failed squarely as Block Education Officer and PIO. Accordingly, the information relating any private body which can be assessed by a public Authority under any other law for the time being in force” in non-supply same in complete form is deficiency under the meaning of the Act u/s 2(g) any fault, imperfection and shortcoming is vivid and poignant, thereby the liability is fixed on the opposite parties on deficient manner of performance, which is deliberate, willful and nature in disrespect to the law.
ORDER.
In the light of above noted discussion, we allow the case on merit and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only, to the complainant toward compensation for the harassment suffered and mental agony sustained along with Rs 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand) only, towards legal expenses incurred, within 3 weeks of this order, failing which interest @ 9% per annum will be accrued on the entire amount from the date of application till realization of payment without fail.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2014.
I agree.
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. MEMBER PRESIDENT.
