Complaint No: 63 of 2022.
Date of Institution: 10.05.2022.
Date of order: 20.09.2023.
Baljinder Singh son of Sh.Davinder Singh, r/o 445/14, New Sant Nagar, near Gurukul Degree College, Gurdaspur, 143521, 6239667748, kimmisinger8892@gmail.com.
….........Complainant. VERSUS
Assistant Director-Cum-Principal, Sandeep Singh Bains, PKG, ITI, Pathankot Road, near grain market, Gurdaspur, 143521, M.+91 9872437172.
….Opposite party.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Sahil Kamboj, Advocate.
For the opposite parties: Sh.Akash Mahajan, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President. Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President
Baljinder Singh complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint against Asstt. Director-Cum-Principal (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite party).
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant had applied for information with the opposite party under Right To Information Act, after making payment of Rs.20/- but inspite of lapse of time prescribed in the Act, the opposite party failed to supply the information which amounts to deficiency in service.
3. Upon notice, Sh.Satpal Clerk has appeared on behalf of opposite party and filed written statement/reply by taking the preliminary objections/on merits that on 14.12.2021 practical examination of Stenographer and Secretarial Assistant (English) trade was conducted fairly without any help to the students but the complainant lodged complaint against Ms.Ankita Kalotra and the complaint lodged by the complainant has been found to be false. It is further pleaded that complainant had also moved police complaint. It is further pleaded that complainant does not come under the definition of consumer and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Complainant has tendered into evidence his self declaration Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C2.
5. Sh.Sat Pal clerk of opposite party has tendered into evidence self declaration of Sandeep Singh Principal Ex.OPW-1/A , copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-8.
6. Rejoinder filed by the complainant.
7. Written arguments filed by the opposite party but not filed by the complainant.
8. Sh.Sahil Kamboj Advocate had appeared on behalf of complainant on 03.08.2022 by filing vakalatnama and Sh.Akash Mahajan Advocate had appeared on behalf of opposite party on 07.08.2023 by filing vakalatnama.
9. Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had applied for information with the opposite party under Right To Information Act, after making payment of Rs.20/- but inspite of lapse of time prescribed the opposite party failed to supply the information which amounts to deficiency in service.
10. On the other hand counsel for the opposite party has argued that on 14.12.2021 practical examination of Stenographer and Secretarial Assistant (English) trade was conducted fairly without any help to the students but the complainant lodged complaint against Ms.Ankita Kalotra and on inquiry the complaint lodged by the complainant has been found to be false. It is further stated that complainant had also moved police complaint. It is further pleaded that complainant does not come under the definition of consumer and there is no deficieny in service on the part of opposite parties
11. We have the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record. Perusal of file shows that main dispute between the parties to the complaint is regarding non supply of information by the opposite party under Right To Information Act, inspite of having received fee from the complainant but we are of the view that jurisdiction of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to intervene in the matters which mainly arises out of provisions of Right To Information Act is barred under section 23 of the Act and proper remedy available to the complainant was by way of filing appeal against the order by way of which information was declined to the complainant.
12. We have placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in 2015(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 639 : 2015 (1) C.P.J. 335 : 2015 (1) CLT 259 :P 2015 (1) C.P.R. 171 in Revision Petition No.3146 with Interim Application No.1206 of 2013 and 5145 of 2014. D/de. 08.01.2015 in case titled as Sanjay Kumar Mishra Vs. Public Information Officer (PIO), State Information Commissioner (SIC), Punjab where in it is held as under
"A. Right to Information Act, 2005 Sections 6(1), 18, 23 and 22 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 2(1)(d) and 12(1) A person seeking information under RTI Act - Information not provided - The person seeking information has no remedy under Consumer Protection Act - Further held:-
(i) The person seeking information under the provisions of RTI Act cannot be said to be a consumer vis-à-vis the Public Authority concerned or CPIO/PIO nominated by it.
(ii) The jurisdiction of the Consumer For a to intervene in the matters arising out of the provisions of RTI Act is barred by necessary implication as also under the provisions of Section 23 of the Act.
(iii) No complaint by a person alleging deficiency in the services rendered by the CPIO/PIO is maintainable before a Consumer Forum 2009(4) RCR (Civil) 8 : 2009(5) Recent Apex Judgment (RAJ) 500, relied" (Paras 21, 22, 23 and 26).
13. We have further placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in 2014(2) C.P.J. 167 : 2013 (50) R.C.R. (Civil) 630 in Revision Petition No. 2846 of 2013in case titled as Public Information Officer Urban Improvement Trust Ajmer Vs. Tarun Agarwal wherein it is held as under
"Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 21(b) Right To Information Act, 2005 Sections 22, 23 and 19 Jurisdiction of consumer forum to case relating to right to information Act - Held, commission not empowered under RTI Act - It cannot arrogate powers which do not vest with it - Petitioners can avail under appellate authority under Section 19 of RTI Act, 2005 - Revision Petition dismissed".
14. As such from the facts on record and evidence and by relying upon the above said judgment of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, the complaint being not maintainable before this Commission is ordered to be dismissed. No order as to costs.
15. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases.
16. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Sept. 20, 2023 Member.
*YP*
