O R D E R Dated:- 25.03.15.
SRI ARUN KUMAR PATEL, PRESIDENT.
1. Deficiency in service against the Op regarding non supply of information under RTI Act is the grievance of the Complainant.
2. In short, the case of the complainant is that, he applied an application under the RTI Act before the Op (PIO) for supplying certain information in relation to his ATL Loan pending before the Bank of Ops on payment of the application fees of Rs. 10/- in shape of Treasury Chhalan. On receipt of the application, Op remain silent and did not provide any information as to the desired documents requested for supply and subsequently replied, that the application could not considered alleging the Challan is not a mode of payment in terms of the provision of the RTI. The Ops just to harass the complainant after a delay of near about one month gave information that, his application could not be considered due to aforesaid reason, which they had to asked for the mode of payment of fee with immediate effect, so that, the complainant could have to clarify the same. Since long days passed Op did not make any arrangement to supply the information to the complainant and rejected the same causing improper mode of payment application fee, amounts to deficiency in service by the Ops. Hence this case was filed against him praying for passing order directing Ops to supply information to the complainant as per the application apply before him with payment of compensation and litigation cost of the case towards harassment caused by the Ops.
3. The Op entered appearance before the Forum through his learned advocate by filing joint written version on behalf of the Ops admitting the fact of receiving application for supply of information under RTI Act from the complainant. In their written statement the Ops submitted that, due to payment of RTI application fee in improper mode they have rejected his application with prompt intimation within less than 15 days of receipt application, hence there is no question of any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. Accordingly the reliefs sought for in complaint petition should not to be granted in any manner and deserved to be rejected with exemplary costs.
4. Heard the case from both the sides, perused the complaint petition, written statement, and documents available in the records we found that, the fact of the case in respect to the matter of receiving application sought for supply of information under RTI Act by the PIO (Op) from the complainant is admitted on admission made in their written version. Now question arises, whether the matter of determination of dispute as to violation of provision in the RTI Act regarding illegal rejection of application sought for information is maintainable before this Forum? After going through the finding of the honourable presiding Member Mr. Justice P.K. Batta and Member Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Naik National CDR Commission, New Delhi, in Revision Petition No. 1975 of 2005, the case filed before the Forum to get benefited the remedy for award of compensation for deficiency in service due to violation of the provision in the R.T.I. Act by adopting the procedure prescribed under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, the present complaint is rightly maintainable before this Forum. Fact in admission is that, the complainant has got his Agriculture Term Loan account pending outstanding against him by the bank of Ops and for obtaining some information in respect to the said loan account has made application under the RTI Act. Since complainant is a consumer under the Ops by obtaining loan, and when he desired to know the status of loan made application sought for some information in that respect before the Bank of Ops. Matter of dispute as to rejection of RTI application by the Ops causing improper mode of payment of application fee and delay of intimation thereto is another most important point for discussion and determination of the present case. Ops in their written version has admittedly on dated 24.04.2014 received the application dated 13.03.2014 as send by the complainant through registered post dated 22.04.2014 and immediately on dated 06.05.2014 intimated the matter of refusal to supply the information sought for by the complainant on the ground as above. The complainant vehemently argued, whether the refusal of supply of information by the Ops on the ground as to the mode of payment fee for the application under RTI in shape of Treasury challan is illegal, if so why during the time of rejection of application the Ops did not return the said challan and retained in their possession? Further the application sought for information received by the Ops on dated 24.04.2014 and intimation thereof to the complainant vide letter dated 06.05.2014 received on dated 20.05.2014 by the complainant proved to be their promptness of service? On going through the provision of law U/s-4 of Orissa Right to Information Rules, 2005 itself provided that
“ (1) A citizen desirous of any information may apply for information in form A to the Public Information Officer, with the required fee in shape of Treasury Challan or cash as specified in the Schedule under the appropriate head of Account:
Provided that, application fee shall not be payable in case of a person whose name appears in the latest list of persons below poverty line for which he has to produce BPL card.
Provided that, a citizen seeking information through electronic means has to submit evidence regarding deposit of prescribed application fee.”
So considering the fact of law, mode of payment application fee in shape of Treasury Challan is most preferable to the other mode of payment as the concerned PIOs collecting fees in different mode except treasury challan remitted the same to the government as specified in the schedule under the head of Account subsequently. And where the mode of payment of application is made by Treasury Challan directly by the applicant the PIOs should have to receive the same as acknowledgement towards payment of application fees thereof. As such there as per the provision in a case of seeking information through electronic means a citizen submit evidence regarding deposit of prescribed application fee in any mode of payment as stated in the Rule of RTI. We have very carefully gone through the case records and documents available and on perusal of written version as filed by the Ops it is crystal clear that there is violation of the provision of law by the Ops is proved due to rejection of RTI application on the ground of improper mode of payment application fees. Considering the above fact and circumstances and hearing arguments submitted by the complainants we satisfied that, the Ops having their special interest to harass the complainant, refused to provide service towards supply of information desired by him, which amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service by the PIO Op No. 2.
In view of our forgoing discussion, we held the Ops are liable for payment of compensation to the complainant and hence directed Op No. 2 /CPIO, Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, B/62, Sector -5 Rourkela, Dist. Sundargarh to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- ( Rupees fifty thousand) only towards the award of compensation for mental agony & harassment and sum Rs.3,000/- ( Rupees three thousand) only as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which interest @ 9% per annum shall be charged till realization.
The order is pronounced in the open court today on the 25th March, 2015 under the signature and seal of the forum and copy of order be communicated to the parties as per rule.
The case is disposed of accordingly.
Typed to my dictation Sri A. K. Patel
and corrected by me. President
Sri A. K. Patel
President. I agree
B. Mahapatra, Member (w).
