PER SHRI. G.H. RATHOD – HON’BLE MEMBER
1) As the per complaint the Complainant prayed that the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 may reply to his RTI Applications under Right to Information Act, 2005 (referred to as RTI Act) filed with them dtd.04/02/2010 & 13/05/2010 as well as cost and compensation to him.
2) As per the complaint the Complainant says that the Opposite Party No.1 is Depository Participant Registered under Depository Act, 1996 and the Complainant is their Account Holder under the said Act. It is submitted that he filed an applications under RTI Act, 2005 with Opposite Party No.1 on dtd.04/06/2010 seeking certain information under RTI Act, as per Exh.‘A’ to the complaint. According to the Complainant, it is mandatory under the said Act that the Opposite Party No.1 shall give the information called as per Exh.‘A’ to the Complainant within 1 month of its receipt. The Complainant also submitted that he filed another application with Opposite Party No.2 on 13/5/2010 as per Exh.‘B’ to the complaint seeking reason for its administrative and quasi judicial decision to affected person. It is alleged that however, till filing of the complaint the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have not responded to the said applications. It is submitted that not supplying the required information by both the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency in service as per the order dtd.28/05/2009 of NCDRC in Rev. Petition No.1975 of 2005 Dr. S.P. Thirumala Rao V/s. Municipal Commissioner Mysore City Municipal Corporation, where the Hon’ble NCDRC held that RTI Applicants are Consumers having paid Rs.10/- for seeking the information called in the application and would fall within the scope and ambit of Sec.2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (referred to as the Act) and further held that the complaint is maintainable under the Act and set aside the order of State Commission and restored the order of District Forum
3) Upon admission of this complaint notices were issued to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Opposite Party No.2 did not appear before this Forum. Hence, ex-parte order was passed by this Forum on 14/03/2011 against Opposite Party No.2.
4) The Opposite Party No.1 initially filed an application under Sec.9A of the Code of Civil Procedure to which the Complainant has replied and objected. Upon hearing the said application this Forum vide order dtd.09/07/2012 rejected the application observing that the Opposite Party No.1 can raise its objection regarding misjoinder of parties and maintainability of this complainant before this Forum in its written statement and the same can be considered at the time of passing the final order in the present complaint.
5) The Opposite Party No.1 contested the complaint by its written statement. It is contended that the complaint is not maintainable as the complaint is regarding the grievance of non receipt of reply towards RTI Application. It is contended that under the RTI Act their exists an Appellate Body to whom the Complainant can appeal in case of dissatisfaction of reply/non receipt of reply from the Information Officer. It is submitted that this position has been upheld by National Body. According to the Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant has also persuade the redressal of the complaint before the Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, as per the documents at Annexure ‘A’ and ‘A-1’ collectively which are the copies of the letters dtd.14/02/2012 addressed by the Central Information Commission to the Public Information Officer of the Opposite Party No.1 and addressed to the Complainant.
6) It is contended that the Complainant is an account holder but he is defaulter as he has not paid the charges, interest, cost expenses, etc. as a result of which his account was frozen. According to the Opposite Party No.1, the Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal No.1050/2009 decided between the Opposite Party No.1 and the Complainant vide order dtd.26/04/2010 concluded that the Complainant is not a Consumer under the Act as defined under Sec.2 of the said Act. It is contended that the required information is already supplied by the First Appellate Authority to CPIO and the complaint is disposed of. It is thus, submitted that looking to the grievance of the Complainant regarding levying charges towards maintenance of Demat Account of Clients suspension of accounts and seeking information thereof and for that filing of this complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
7) The Complainant has filed his affidavit the Opposite Party sworned the written statement through its Chief Manager. The Complainant has filed written argument. The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 did not file their written argument. We heard the oral argument of Ld.Advocate Mr. S.V. Bajaj for the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant by his letter received to this Forum on 12/06/2013 submitted that he does not want to say anything more and his written submissions may be taken into consideration. Considering the pleadings of the Complainant and the documents placed on record by him as well as the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 and the documents placed on record by the Opposite Party No.1 the following points arise for our consideration and our findings thereon are as under –
Point No.1 : Whether the Complainant proves that the complaint filed against the Opposite Parties for not providing the information called in the application submitted by him to the Opposite Parties under RTI Act, is maintainable before this Forum ?
Ans. : Not proved.
Pont No.2 : What order ?
Ans. : As per final order.
Point No.1 & 2 : The Complainant in the complaint has alleged that this complaint is maintainable in view of the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1975/2005 dtd.28/05/2009 (cited Supra). The Opposite Party No.1 on the other hand contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the reliefs claimed by the Complainant as the same are pertaining under the RTI Act. The Opposite Party No.1 has contended that the application made by the Complainant has been replied vide letter dtd.14/06/2010 under reference No.RTI/136/649/2010/11. It is also contended that as per Sec.19 of the RTI Act, the remedies are available to a person aggrieved by the information given by the Public Information Officer. According to the Opposite Party No.1, it is a special code under which the specific remedies are available therefore the complainant is not maintainable. While considering the rival contentions we are of the view that the observations which are relied by the Complainant in Revision Petition No.1975/2005, dtd.28/05/2009 is not anyway helpful to hold that this Forum has jurisdiction regarding non supply of information by the Information Officer of a particular institution under the RTI Act, as the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition NO.3636/2012, decided on 25/02/2013, reported in II (2013) CPJ 4B (NC) (CN) in the case of B. Vasudeva Shetty V/s. Kota Co-operative Agricultural Bank Ltd. and in other R.P.No.1250/2010, decided on 12/08/2010, in the case of S.N. Subramannya V/s. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palika held that the RTI Act is a complete Court in itself and provides for an elaborate mechanism of appeal if an applicant under the Act is denying the information to which he is rightfully entitled under the provisions of the Act. It is also held that the proper course for the Petitioner was thus, to approach the prescribed Appellate Authority against the alleged action of the Respondent Mahanagar Palika. In the above two recent orders of the Hon’ble National Commission it is held that such type of consumer complaint does not lie under the Act. We therefore, hold that in view of the recent decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission the complaint filed by the Complainant for not providing the required information under the RTI Act by the Opposite Parties itself is not maintainable or does not lie before this Forum. In the result we answer point No.1 as not proved and pass the following order -
O R D E R
i. Complaint No.346/2010 is dismissed with no order as to cost.
ii. Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
