Haryana

StateCommission

A/119/2016

SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

26 Feb 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      119 of 2016

Date of Institution:      08.02.2016

Date of Decision :       26.02.2016

 

Sanjay Kumar Mishra, House No.1224, G/F, New HBC Sector-19, Panchkula-134113, Haryana.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

 

1.      Chief Information Commissioner, Punjab, S.C.O. No.84-85, Second Floor, Sector 17-C, U.T. Chandigarh-160017.

 

2.      Sri Surinder Awasthi, State Information Commissioner, Punjab, S.C.O. No.32-33-34, F/F, Sector: 17-C, Chandigarh-160017.

 

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

 

Present:              Shri Parbodh Chander Bali-representative for appellant.   

 

O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 18^th January, 2016, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula (for short ‘the District Forum’), whereby Consumer Complaint No.12 of 2016, was dismissed.

2.      Sanjay Kumar Mishra-Complainant/appellant, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging that the information sought by him under Right to Information Act, 2005, was not supplied to him by the respondents/opposite parties.

3.      The question for determination is as to whether the appellant/complainant falls within the domain of Consumer or not? 

4.      Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.3396 of 2013, titled as ‘Shri Kali Ram versus State Public Information Officer-Cum-Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner’ decided on October 9^th, 2013 held as under:-

“3.     The key controversy swirls round the question “Whether there lies a rub for the consumer fora to entertain the case pertaining to the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short ‘RTI Act’)?  The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum partly allowed the complaint on the ground that these cases come within the realm of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum relied upon the following authorities.

• Kalawathi & Others Vs. United Vaish Co-operative thrift & Credit Society Limited, reported in I (2002) CPJ 71 (NC)
• air Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd., & Anr. V N.K. Modi reported in III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC)
• DR. S.P. Thirumala Rao vs. Municipal Commissioner, revision petition No. 1975 of 2005 decided on 28th May, 2009

4.      We do not locate substance in the arguments advanced by the petitioner.  First of all, Sections 22 & 23 of the RTI Act, 2005  are crystal clear, and the same are hereby reproduced:-

“22. Act to have overriding effect :- The provision of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.  From this, it is beyond doubt that this Act, however, has on overriding effect in that the authorities under this Act may make independent decisions about the question whether such disclosure or non-disclosure has any overriding public interest.  Therefore, it may become necessary for the authorities to independently decide whether disclosure of information which itself being an act done in public interest, overweighs the public interest sought to be protected under those enactments.

23.  Bar of Jurisdiction of Courts :-  No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made this Act, and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act”.

Again, Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005, provides procedure for appeal.  

5.      This view stands emboldened by a recent judgment by a Bench consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. M. Malik and Hon’ble Dr. B. C. Gupta in the case of Smt. Tasleem Bint Hussain vs. The State Public Information Officer, revision petition No. 737 of 2013 decided on 1^st March, 2013 and the judgment  rendered by a Bench headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, President in the case of T.Pundalika Vs. Revenue Department (Service Division) Government of Karnataka, RP No. 4061 of 2010, decided on 31.03.2011.  In this case it was held:-

“Respondent, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been allowed by observing thus:-

“At the outset, it is not in dispute that complainant  had filed an application u/s 6 & 7 of the Right to Information Act to the OP No.4. But complainant cannot be considered as a ‘consumer’ as defined under the C.P.Act since there is a remedy available for the complainant to approach the appellate authority u/s 19 of the RTI Act, 2005”.

“We agree with the view taken by the fora below.  Petitioner cannot be claimed to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. There is a remedy available for him to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. Dismissed”.

6.      Again, this Commission also took the same view in RP 3276/2012, Pothireddipalli Sugunavati Vs. Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., decided on 14.01.2013.”

5.      In view of the above, the answer to the question posed is in the negative.  Thus, the complaint filed by the complainant before the District forum was not maintainable as the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’. 

6.      This is besides the fact that application under RTI was filed before State Information Commissioner, Punjab at Chandigarh, therefore, Consumer Fora at Panchkula had no jurisdiction.

7.      Hence, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.

 

 

Announced: 26.02.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

CL