BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.                         

                                                                      Complaint No.: 4 of 2014.

                                                                      Date of Institution: 1.1.2014.

                                                                      Date of Decision: 6.7 2015.

Shri Samer Singh son of Shri Puran Singh, resident of village Jharwai, tehsil and district Bhiwani.                          ……..Complainant.                                                 Versus.

1. The B.D.P.O. Sahib, Bhiwani, tehsil and district Bhiwani.                           
2. Gram Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Jharwai, tehsil and district Bhiwani.
3. Sarpanch Gram Pasnchayat Jharwai-cum-Public Information Officer, Bhiwani, district Bhiwani.
4. The D.D.P.O. Bhiwani, tehsil and district Bhiwani.

                                                              …….Opposite Parties.

                    COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF

                    THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

Shri Balraj Singh, Member

Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member

Present:       Complainant in person.  

Shri Puran Singh, OP No.3 in person with Shri Sandeep Tanwar, Advocate.

Shri Gautam Kumar on behalf of OPs No1 & 4.

Shri Kuldeep Singh, OP No.2 in person.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                    The grievance of the complainant is that he had applied for seeking some information from the opposite parties vide application dated 30.7.2013 and had also attached postal orders as application fee and the application was sent to the opposite parties but they have failed to supply the information. The complainant alleged that he had preferred an appeal but the required information was not supplied to him.  The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conducts of opposite parties he had to suffer mental harassment and financial loss, due to non supply to the information and has sought compensation by way of the present complaint.

2.                Opposite Parties No.1 & 4 on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the answering opposite parties have no concern whatsoever the information sought by the complainant and as such he has been wrongly and illegally impleaded as party. However, it is submitted that all the information sought under the RTI Act was given the complainant. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with costs.

3.                 Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 on appearance have also filed separate written statement and has taken the same version as alleged by opposite parties No.1 & 4, so there is no need for its repetition. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.                 In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C1 Photostat copy of Information sought under RTI Act, Annexure C2 Photostat copy of Postal Order, Annexure C3 Photostat copy of order dated 1.8.2013, Annexure C4 Photostat copy of Postal Receipt, Annexure C5 Photostat copy of letter dated 9.9.2013, Annexure C6 Photostat copy of Appeal under the RTI Act, 2005 and Annexure C7 Photostat copy of challan along with supporting affidavit.

5.                In reply thereto, the opposite parties did not produce any evidence.

6.                 We have heard the parties in person and counsel for the parties.

7

.                   Without going into merits of the case we dispose of this complaint on the law point. The Hon’ble National Commission in case Sanjay Kumar Mishra Versus Vs. Public Information Officer (PIO) & others, 2015(1) CLT 259(NC) held:

“For the reasons stated hereinabove, we hold that (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 and (ii) the jurisdiction of the Consumer For a 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 service rendered by the CPIO/PIO is maintainable before a Consumer Forum”.

           In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, as mentioned above, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 6.7.2015.                                     (Rajesh Jinda)

                                                                      President,

                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                            Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

(Anita Sheoran)     (Balraj Singh)

Member.                Member