Order dated .26.04.2024
The record is put up today for consideration of the complaint on the point of admission. The complainants namely Sri Anand Kumar Sharma and Sri Tapas Kumar Dwibedi has filed a consumer complaint U/sec.35 of the C.P.Act,2019 against the above named O.ps through e-filing( consumer Commission) and received on dated 09.04.2024 alongwith other documents seeking several reliefs due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the grounds stated therein. :
“ As the O.ps failed to provide the return consideration for which they have taken the fee in advance thus committed the act & Omission of the unfair trade practice and default in services, they have also violated the right to information as crafted in section 2(9)(ii) of the C.P.Act,2019.”
Further they have furnished the extra-copies of complaint alongwith certain documents through Regd.post on 15.04.2024.
Heard. Perused the complaint and documents therein. The complainants who are the practicing advocates of the Hon’ble Odisha High Court,associates of the Advocate Chamber,Human Right Activists ,whistle blower and towards the professional duty of his esteemed client have filed an R.T.I Application on 27.08.2023 by paying Rs.10/- as the Application Fee in advance vide e-challan Ref Id No.35BE6ABF09 and Department Reference Id: RTI 23162390 and promised to pay the cost of the information provided to him by the I.I.C-cum- PIO,Binjharpur police station,Dist.Jajpur.
As per record, PIO-cum- IIC,Binjharpur P.S,Jajpur had disposed off the RTI Application on dated 15.09.2023 vide Letter No.2532/PS/dt 15.09.2023 to Sri Tapas Kumar Dwibedi, complainant no.02.
The Right to Information Act,2005 is complete code in itself, which provides an adequate and effective remedy to the person aggrieved from any decision/ inaction /act/Omission or misconduct of a CPIO/PIO . Not only does the Act provide for two appeals ,it also provides for a complaint to the Central Information Commission/State Information Commission, as the case may be, where the CPIO/PIO does not give his decision, on the application within the prescribed time. Therefore, a complaint under the C.P.Act,2019 is not maintainable as per the provision U/sec.100 of the C.P.Act,2019 related to R.T.I Act,2005.
Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble National Commission,New Delhi in catena of judgement decided about it. In the case of Shri KaliRam Vrs.State Public Information Officer-cum-Deputy Excise & Taxation Commission,2013(4)CPR-559(N.C) ,wherein it was held that:-
“ Order passed under RTI Act,2005 cannot be subject matter of Consumer Dispute”.
Similarly , in the case of Khanapuram Gandaiah Vrs. Administrative Officer & Ors-AIR-2010-SC-615, wherein it was held that:
“ the remedy for a party aggrieved against the order of the Public Information officer lies in a challenge by way of appeal, revision or any other legally permissible made, allowed the appeal.”
In such circumstances, the complainants are not the “ consumer” as per provision U/sec.2(7) & U/sec.100 of the C.P.Act,2019 to entertain the case relating to seeking information under the provision of R.T.I,Act,2005. The approach made by them to this Commission seeking relief under the provision of C.P.Act,2019 is misconceived as the present Consumer complaint is not maintainable against the fee required as per the provision under the R.T.I Act,2005. Hence, the District Consumer Commission ( In short “ District Commission) has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint arising out of the order passed under the R.T.I Act,2005.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, no complaint by a person alleging deficiency in service rendered by the CPIO/PIO is maintainable before the Consumer Commission. Hence, the present Consumer complaint is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission with the complainants is at liberty to approach the Appropriate/ Adjudicating Authority “ for redressal of their grievances. No costs.
Accordingly, the consumer complaint bearing C.C.No.57/2024 is disposed off.
Issue extract of the order to the complainants.
