This case coming on 3-07-2014 before this Forum in the presence of Sri A.V.V.GOPALA RAO, COMPLAINANT appearing in person and Sri Lanka Jaganndha Rao, Advocate for the Opposite Parties, having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following:

O  R  D  E  R

(As per the Honourable President (FAC) on behalf of the Bench)

1. The case of the complainant in brief is that the he has submitted examination application for LL.M., through Principal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar College of Law, A.U., Visakhapatnam duly enclosing Bankers Cheque for Rs.390/- towards examination fee for writing two  papers of II Semester of LL.M., P.G.Course to be held in April, 2011. The two papers are Legal Education and Research Methodology in which he has got 43 marks out of 100 marks 2) 46 marks out of 100during November, 2008. The complainant had received a letter on 20-04-2011  stating that “I am by direction inform you to submit a letter stating that you are not going to pursue any case against Andhra university in respect of LL.M. P.G. course of which you have submitted examination application. You will be permitted to write II Semester LL.M. P.G. Course examination on submission of the undertaking”, even though he had submitted examination application during March, 2010. The complainant has to wait another year for writing examination of the two subjects in which he wants improve the percentage. The action of the 2^nd OP is malicious use of power. The complainant addressed a letter to A.U. Registrar and sought permission u/s 6(A) RTI Act for inspection of records and also to obtain the certified copies filed. But there is no response. The complainant has preferred an appeal U/s (6) of Section 19 of the RTI 2005 with the 3^rd OP on 18-05-2011 and the statutory period of 30 days which the appeal shall be disposed expired on 17-06-2011, there is no response from the 3^rd OP. Hence, this complaint.

1. To direct the Opposite Parties to supply the certified copies of the following documents.

1. The order of the Vice Chancellor dated 7^th April, 2011.
2. The legal opinion of Sri D.Dakshina Murthy, Advocate dated 12-04-2011,
3. Note orders of the Vice Chancellor dated 15^th April, 2011.

1. To direct the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for denying information.
2. To direct the Opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for not allowing the complainant to write the II Semester LL.M Ph.Degree examination fee was paid and the examination application was forwarded by the Principal, Dr.B.R. Ambedkar College of Law in which complainant has pursued his LL.M.P.G. Degree during 2008-2010.
3. To direct the Opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.3 lakhs for the mental agony the complainant has to suffer for the next one year as the II semester of L.L.M., P.G., degree will be held only after one year. The period of one year is not a small period in the life of a senior citizen.
4. The cost of compliant;
5. For such other relief/reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

1. OP strongly resisted the claim of the complainant by filing its counter. Both parties filed affidavits. Exhibits A1 to A7 are Suomoto marked. But the forum does not look into the documents as the complaint is not maintainable in this Forum.
2. As per the observation given by the Honourable National Commission, at the outset, it is not in dispute that the complainant has filed an application U/s 6 and 19 of RTI Act. The complainant cannot be considered as a Consumer defined under Consumer Protection Act. It is a settled law that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain any petition under RTI Act as in RP No.4061/2010 held by the Honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the case of T.Pundarika Vs. Revenue Department,(Service Division) Government of Karnataka wherein it held that the complainant did not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act and he cannot claim as to be a Consumer; as there is a remedy available for him to approach the Appellate Authorities u/s 19 of RTI Act 2005, hence, the complainant cannot entitle to any reliefs under Consumer Protection Act; he has to approach the proper authority for his grievance.
   1. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No Costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 3^rd day of July, 2014.

Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

Male Member                                     President

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

For the Complainants:

For the Opposite Party :-    -nil-    
 

Sd/-                                                 Sd/-

Male Member                                     President