Haryana

StateCommission

A/290/2015

PUBLI INFORMATION OFFICER CUM SURPANCH - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEVI SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

R.S.HOODA

15 Jul 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.         290 of 2015

Date of Institution:       25.03.2015

Date of Decision:        15.07.2015

 

Bhagti w/o Mool Chand, Jan Suchna Adhikari cum Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Aamru, Tehsil and District Palwal.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.3

Versus

1.      Devi Singh s/o Ram Kishan, r/o Aamru, Tehsil and District Palwal.

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      Deputy Commissioner cum Appellate Authority, Palwal.

3.      Public Information Officer cum Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Prithla, Tehsil and District Palwal.

4.      APIO cum Secretary Gram Panchayat, Aamru, Block Prithla, District Palwal.

Respondents-Opposite Parties No.2, 1 & 4

 

 

CORAM:                 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                                 Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                 Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.                                                                   

Present::                  Shri J.S. Hooda, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Devi Singh, respondent-complainant in person.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          By filing the present appeal, Bishan Singh-complainant (respondent herein) has challenged the order dated February 24^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal, whereby complaint filed by him was partly allowed.  Operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

                   “……Opposite party No.3 is directed to supply the attested correct information on third point (c) sought vide application dated 9.12.2013 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.  Opposite parties number 1 and 3 are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/-, jointly and severally, as compensation towards mental agony, harassment alongwith Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which they shall be further burdened with penalty amount of Rs.2000/- alongwith the award amount..”

 

2.      Complainant sought information from the Public Information Officer cum Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Prithla, District Palwal -opposite party No.1 vide application dated December 09^th, 2013 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Information was not supplied to him. He filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Palwal-opposite party No.2 stating that the information sought, was not supplied to him. The appeal was decided by the Deputy Commissioner directing the appellant to provide the information. Hence, the complaint.

3.      After evaluating the evidence of the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint as detailed in paragraph No.1 of this order.

4.      The question for determination is as to whether or not the respondent-complainant falls within the domain of Consumer? 

5.      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:-

“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.”

 

6.      In view of the above, the complaint filed by the complainant before the District forum was not maintainable as the complainant cannot be considered as a ‘consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act 7.   Hence, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.6100/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

   

 

Announced 15.07.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK