BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 628 of 2022.
Date of Institution : 11.10.2022.
Date of Decision : 10.10.2024.
Prem Jain son of Sh. Manak Chand Jain, aged 52 years, resident of 215B, Bhim Colony, Sirsa. Mobile No. 98965-21898.
……Complainant.
Versus.
District Food & Supply Controller/ DFSC, Sirsa.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA………………….MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite party already exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to OP).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that op DFSC, Sirsa is a Administrator Public Officer appointed by Haryana Government and each documents maintained in its office come in the definition of the clause-74 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. That on 12.09.2022 complainant sought information from op under the provision of clause-76 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 through his application alongwith fee of Rs.10/- and also attached postal order bearing No. 390462 of the amount of Rs.50/- as fee for obtaining documents and on the demand of the op he also deposited other expenses with the op for obtaining file/ documents regarding allotment of depots to Rajni of Jagdambe Colony, Sirsa, Rajni of Patel Basti Sirsa, Mukesh Kumar of Sahuwala, Rohit Kumar of Kanganpur Road, Sirsa and of village Phulkan (Sirsa) and also sought information regarding departmental letters regarding allotment of wheat to the depot holders by the office of DFSC, Sirsa and PR Centre from 01.01.2015 to 30.12.2016 written to Confed, Sirsa and also about postings of Food Supply Inspectors, Sirsa from 01.01.2015 to 30.12.2016 and certified copy of detail of the depots attached with them. It is further averred that although op was under obligation to provide the certified copies of these desired public documents to the complainant with immediate effect within stipulated period of 24 hours as per rules but as op did not took any action in the matter within stipulated time, therefore, the complainant through his counsel Sh. Pawan Pareek, Advocate of Sirsa Courts got served a legal notice to the op on 22.09.2022 requesting the op to supply the certified copies of above said documents within three days but despite that op did not supply any certified copies of above said required documents and as such op has committed violation of the legal rights of the complainant available under the Consumer Protection Act and has acted wrongly and illegally and complainant has cause of action to file the complaint against the op. The act and conduct of the op i.e. not providing of certified copies of above said documents despite receiving partial fee from complainant also amounts to deficiency in service/ denial of service as per various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the op to supply certified copies of above said required documents to the complainant, to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing unnecessary harassment to the complainant and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- for causing deficiency in service and also to pay an amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. On notice, op appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable and sustainable in the present form against the answering op and that complainant has filed the present complaint on the basis of false and frivolous allegations just with the oblique motive to obtain the public documents which cannot be supplied to him and complaint is liable to be dismissed with special costs.
4. On merits, it is submitted that some documents which are being kept on record in the department are not in the lists of the public document. The complainant is a depot holder and a case bearing FIR No. 806 dated 10.10.2017 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120-B IPC, Police Station City Sirsa was registered against the 58 depot holders (including the complainant Prem Jain) and 12 officers of the Food & Supply Department and same is still pending. In the said case SIT (Special Investigating Team) has also been constituted by the Superintendent of Police, Sirsa and during investigation of the case, a letter bearing No. 12/SIT dated 19.02.2021 has been sent by the Investigating Officer of SIT to the Food Supply Department in which it was specifically directed to the Food & Supply Department not to supply any record relating to the aforesaid case to any of the accused of the said case. In the present matter the complainant has sought the copies of said related documents from the Food & Supply Department, hence the department is unable to supply the said documents under RTI Act also because of a specific direction of the SIT regarding not supplying any documents to any of the accused. It is further submitted that due to aforesaid facts and circumstances, the op department is unable to provide the copies of the said documents to the complainant. It is also submitted that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4.
6. On the other hand, when the case was fixed for evidence of op none appeared on behalf of op and as such op was proceeded against exparte.
7. We have heard complainant and have gone through the case file.
8. The op alongwith its written version has placed on file a copy of letter of Investigating Officer, SIT Office, Police Station City Sirsa written to District Food & Supply Controller, Sirsa dated 19.02.2021 vide which it was directed not to supply any record relating to the case bearing FIR No. 806 dated 10.10.2017 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, 409, 120-B IPC, Police Station City Sirsa as supply of the same can effect investigation and same falls under the definition of Section 8 (1) H of Right to Information Act, 2005. In this regard Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 regarding exemption from disclosure of information stipulates that information cannot be given where Information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. According to op the above said case has been registered against 58 depot holders including the complainant and 12 officers of the Food & Supply Department and same is still pending and as such the department is unable to supply the said documents under RTI Act. Since the complainant is an accused in the said case and a specific direction was given to the op not to supply record of the said case as same can effect investigation and as per above said section of RIT Act, 2005 there is exemption from disclosure of such information which can impede the process of investigation and complainant has not denied the fact that he is not an accused in the said case, therefore, complainant cannot ask the op to supply the information/ documents of the said case under the RTI Act and department/ op has to produce the said record/ documents in the said case before the competent court of law in order to prove its case. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Namit Sharma Versus Union of India Writ Petition (Civil) No. 210 of 2012 decided on 13.09.2012 and the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High court in case titled as Suhas Bhand Versus State of Maharashtra and another, Criminal Writ Petition No. 1194 of 2008 decided on 18.08.2009 relied upon by complainant are not applicable in this case.
9. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member Member President
Dt. 10.10.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
