JUDGMENT
Sri A.K.Patra,President
1. The facts of the complaint in brief is that Complainant has sought for information under RTI act from the Opposite Party but the Opposite Party did not supplied the required information within the stipulated period of time for which the complainant suffered irreparable loss and there was a clear path to lead towards the malpractices by the Opposite. Hence, this complaint.
2. On being notice, the Opposite Party appeared and filed his written version stating therein the Opp.Party has received two numbers of RTI application from PIO,O/o Sub-Collector, Dharamgarh vide letter No.5058 and 5060 dt.12.11.2018 and the Opp.Party has asked the complainant to deposit the cost of Rs.95/- for supply of information vide letter No.36 dt.19.11.2018 but the complainant failed to deposit the required fee. Another two numbers of RTI application received from Odisha State Agricultural Marketing Board, Bhubaneswar vide letter No.3357 dt.02.11.2018 and the Opposite Party asked the complainant to deposit Rs.57/- vide letter No.35 dt.19.11.2018 but the complainant did not deposit the fees. The complainant has applied for information under RTI before the PIO ,OSAM Board Bhubaneswar. The PIO,OSAM Board has transferred the said applications to the opposite Party vide their letter No.2434 dt.12.07.2017 with a direction to furnish the required information immediately and as per the direction of OSAM Board the Opposite Party Junagarh has furnished the detail information to OSAM Board vide letter Noa.502 dt.26.07.2017. In this regard the complainant made complaint before the Odisha Information Commission, Bhubaneswar and the Odisha Information Commission has directed the Opposite Party to furnish the status report about the complaint of the complainant and accordingly the Opposite Party furnished the detail status report to the Odisha Information Commission, Bhubaneswar vide office letter No.554 dt.29.04.2019 with a copy of the complainant vide Memo No.555 dt.29.04.2019. The allegation made against the Opposite Party is false and baseless.
3. We perused the records and documents filed by the parties and given out thoughtful consideration upon the argument submitted by the Parties.
. Before discussing other facts and issues we feel it proper to decide the case on the point of maintainability of this complaint. The complainant has sought for certain information under RTI Act and due to non supply of information sought for by the Opposite Party he has presented this complaint before this Commission .
4. We are relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Sanjay Kumar Mishra Vr.Public Information Office dt.08.01.2015 in Revision Petition 3146/2012 where it is held that (i) the person seeking information under the provisions of RTI Act cannot be said to be a consumer vis-vis the Public Authority concerned or CPIO/PIO nominated by it and (ii) the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora/Commission to intervene in the matters arising out of the provisions of the RTI Act is barred by necessary implication as also under the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act. Consequently no complaint by a person alleging deficiency in the services rendered by the CPIO/PIO is maintainable before a Consumer Forum.
5. In view of the aforesaid finding and judgment of the NCDRC, New Delhi we are of the opinion that, this complaint petition is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act,2019 and hence dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission today on this 17th day of November,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.
The judgment be uploaded forthwith in the website of the Commission and free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet to treat the same as copy of the order received from this Commission
Dictated and corrected by me.
President
I agree
Member President
