Haryana

Panchkula

CC/12/2016

Sanjay Kumar Mishra. - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

18 Jan 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                  

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	12 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	15.01.2016
Date of Decision	:	18.01.2016

                                                                                          

Sanjay Kumar Mishra, R/o H.No.1224, G/F, New HBC, Sector-19, Panchkula-134113 (Haryana).

 

                                                                                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Chief Information Commissioner (CIC), Punjab, SCO 84-85, S/F, Sector-17-C, Chandigarh-160017.

2.       SRI Surinder Awasthi, State Information Commissioner, Punjab, SCO No.32-33-34, F/F, Sector 17-C, u.T.Chandigarh-160017.

 

                                                                                                                                       …. Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                                    Mr. Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs. Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

                            

For the Parties:     Complainant in person.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. In brief, the complainant has filed the present complaint against the Ops with the averments that he made a request dated 12.10.2015 u/s 76 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 requesting the OP No.2 to supply certified copy of the public documents but the same has not been supplied to him. Thereafter, the complainant made a complaint dated 16.11.2015 to Op No.1 complaining that Op No.2 has not supplied the certified copy as requested u/s 76 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but the Op No.1 did also nothing in the matter and became silent. The Op No.1 has violated 3 Consumer Rights guaranteed u/s 6 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 i.e. (i) Right to seek redressal (ii) Right to be heard, and (iii) Right to be informed. After making complaint to Op No.1, who is a senior of Op No.2 and an Administrative Head of the Public Authority i.e. SIC, Punjab has the burden to supply the certified copy as requested by the complainant on 12.10.2015 from Op No.2. The complainant in his complaint has sought the following relief:-

1. Directions be issued to OP’s to supply us complete information (certified copy of the public documents i.e. copies of concerned Sections of RTI Act, 2005 or Rules made thereunder) as requested vide my Request for Information dated 12.10.2015 and

2. Impose penalty of Rs.40000/- (forty thousand) on each respondents & deposit all these penalty amount of Rs.80,000/- in the “Consumer Welfare Fund” maintained with this Hon’ble Forum.
3. A lump sum compensation with cost of litigation Rs.20,000/- may please be awarded to complainant for harassment, injustice, mental agony etc. Suffered in the whole episode.
4. Pass any other order/reliefs, which this Hon’ble Forum may deem just and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of this case may also be awarded in the interest of justice.

2. Earlier the complainant has filed a similar complaint against the Ops before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-1, U.T., Chandigarh which was dismissed on 04.05.2012 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-1, U.T., Chandigarh. The complainant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh on 05.06.2012 which was also dismissed on 16.07.2012 by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh. The complainant has also filed revision petition No.3146 of 2012 before the Hon’ble National Commission which was dismissed by the Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 08.01.2015. While dismissing the abovesaid revision petition, the Hon’ble National Commission has ordered as under:-

          “25.    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-a-vis the Public Authority concerned or CPIO/PIO nominated by it and (ii) the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora 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. The Revision Petition No.2028 of 2012 and Revision Petition No.362 of 2013 are, therefore, allowed and the complaints subject matter of the said revision petitions are dismissed. Consumer Complaint No.66 of 2014 is also hereby dismissed. Revision Petition No.3146 of 2012, Revision Petition No.2806 of 2012 and First Appeal No.275 of 2012 are dismissed.”

3. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the order passed by the Hon’ble National Commission as mentioned above, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed in limini.
4. A copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

18.01.2016   S.P.ATTRI      ANITA KAPOOR       DHARAM PAL

              MEMBER      MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

                                 

                                                                             DHARAM PAL

                             PRESIDENT