PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      Petitioner present in person.  The grievance of the petitioner is that he demanded some information about Unemployment Allowance through Right to Information Act 2005 from the respondents which are detailed above vide application dated 26.12.2012.  He could not get the reply, therefore, he filed a complaint before the District Forum.  Both the Fora, the District Forum as well as the State Commission dismissed his complaint.

2.      We have heard petitioner. He submits that as per Section 2 and 3, the consumer Fora have got the jurisdiction. 

3.      We do not locate substance in the arguments advanced by the petitioner/complainant.  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”.

4.      The Commission  is  certainly not armed with the powers under the RTI Act.  It cannot  arrogate the powers which do not vest with it.  We are supposed  to  exercise  our  powers  within  the parameters of Law.  Instead of  wasting  the precious  time of this Commission,  the

petitioner should  approach the proper forum.

5.      This view stands emboldened by the following authorities.  T.Pundalika Vs. Revenue Department (Service Division) Government of Karnataka, RP No. 4061 of 2010, decided on 31.03.2011, by  the  Bench Headed  by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, President, wherein 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.      Similar view  was  taken  by another judgment of this Commission, reported in  Shonkh Technologies  Ltd. Vs.  Tushar Mandlekar, IV (2009) CPJ 280 (NC).  Para No. 6 of the said judgment is relevant, which is reproduced below:-

“6…… That apart, since registration of a vehicle under Form 23-A is in accordance with notification dated 27.11.2002, challenging its validity which is shown to be the object, behind securing  copy of  the agreement, its validity was not a question to be adjudicated by Consumer Fora. Added to this, after respondent has lost its move to secure copy of the agreement in question under the Right to Information Act, before a Competent Authority also the Appellate Authority, this Commission cannot exercise  revisional jurisdiction sitting over the decisions  rendered by these two authorities as after availing one remedy prescribed under the statue taking recourse to Consumer Grievance Redressal Agency hoping for further relief was not permissible. The Government of Maharashtra rightly in our view preferred to withhold the document instead of getting it public. The impugned orders in both the Revision Petitions 598 of 2009 and 599 of 2009  are accordingly set aside and both the Revision Petitions succeed”.

7.      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.

8.      In view of the above, the Revision Petition is meritless, hence, dismissed.