West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/39/2015

Sri Subir Sengupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dr. Anathbandhu Patra - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jul 2015

ORDER

                                                             DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

 PRESENTS : Before Ld. President : Mr. Bibekananda Pramanik.

                                     Ld. Member   :  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

                                     Ld. Member   :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

                                              

                                              Complaint Case No.39/2015

                                                        

                                                            Sri Subir Sengupta,

                                                        

                                                                                        ………Complainant.

Vs

                                                           Dr. Anathbandhu Patra.

                                                                                                     …………..OP

 For the Complainant :            Self

 For the O.P.                : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sarkar, Advocate.

 

                                    Judgement delivered on: - 13/07/2015

                               

JUDGEMENT

 

          Facts of the case, as made out in the petition of complaint, filed by Sri Subir Sengupta is as follows:-

        The  complainant is a permanent employee of  Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur in the district of Paschim Medinipur. On 08/06/2012, the mother of the complainant Smt. Lalima Sengupta, aged 71 years, was admitted in as B.C. Roy Technology Hospital, IIT, Kharagpur with severe chest pain. On the same day, she was referred to R.N. Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Science, Kolkata. Subsequently, his mother was discharged from RTIICS, Kolkata but she is not fully cured till date. There is a MOU between RTIICS and IIT, Kharagpur and as per clause 10(II) of the said MOU, the empanelled hospital will sent bi-weekly status report of the patients admitted therein and a daily  report of seriously ill patient shall, be sent to the Head, B.C. Roy Technology Hospital,  IIT, Kharagpur. On 7/3/2014, the complainant submitted an application as

Contd…………….P/2

 

-(2)-

per Right to Information Act, 2005 with requisite fees there by asking bi-weekly status report of his mother but after receiving all necessary fees, the OP, being the Public Information Officer of IIT, Kharagpur, supplied status report of other patients instead of the mother of the complainant. Therefore, on 16/04/2014, the complainant sent a letter to the OP requesting the OP to send full status report of his mother. Since, nothing was done after harassment of couple of times, the complainant submitted an application before the First Appellate Authority of IIT, Kharagpur on 15/05/2014 and the First Appellate Authority, directed the OP to supply the required information to the complainant. On 09/07/2014, the OP stated that no further documents/information is available than those supplied earlier. The complainant met the OP on several time but he harassed the complainant. Hence, the complaint.

         As against this, the case of the OP, as disclosed in his W/O, is that the case is not maintainable in it’s present form and prayer, that the complainant is neither a purchaser nor the OP is a seller, that the OP being the Public Information Officer of IIT, Kharagpur responded to the same complainant with photo copies as per rule on 31/03/2014 on basis of the information gathered from Senior Medical  Officer. Being aggrieved by the said information, the complainant preferred an Appeal and as per direction of the  First Appellate Authority, the OP again took endeavour to gather further documents as available and duly supplied to the complainant .It is stated that in RTI Act there is provision for 2^nd Appeal, if the complainant is not satisfied with the decision of the PIO and the First Appellate Authority and that the complainant is not entitled to any relief, as prayed for.

             

Points for decision:-

 

1) Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?

2) Has the complainant any cause of action to file the present case?

3) Is the complainant entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

 

Decision with reasons

 

             For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

            It appears that neither the complainant not the OP adduced any sort of oral or documentary evidence but they have submitted few documents in this case. Be that as it may, we find that it is the grievance of the complainant that the OP, being the Public Information Officer under Right to Information Act, 2005 of IIT, Kharagpur, did not supply the information as sought for by the

Contd…………….P/3

 

-(3)-

complainant by paying requisite fees for which he preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority and even after direction of the First Appellate Authority, the OP did not supply the information as sought for. As against this, OP’s case is that of denial and that the present case is not maintainable. Admittedly, the OP preferred an appeal under Right to Information Act before the First Appellate Authority of IIT, Kharagpur, against the OP. Section 19 (3) of the Right to Information Act provides provision for preferring 2^nd appeal but instead of doing so, the complainant has come before this Forum for redressal. Section 23 of the R.I.T. Act bars jurisdiction to entertain   any suit, application   or other proceeding respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act. Had the complainant any grievance against the OP, then he could very well preferred 2^nd appeal under section 19(3) of  RTI Act. In view of that and in view section 23 of the RTI Act, we are of the opinion that the present complaint case is not maintainable in as much as this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain any such application against the order passed by Public Information Officer under the said Act.

            All the points are accordingly disposed of. 

            In the result, the complaint case is liable to be dismissed.

            Hence, it is,

ORDERED

            that the complaint case is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances, without any cost.

Dic. & Corrected by me

            

       President                               Member                                              President                                                

                                                                                                            District Forum

                                                                                                        Paschim Medinipur.