Date of filing : 02-07-2011
Date of Disposal: 04-05-2012
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com., B.L., President (FAC)
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L.,Male Member
Sri Kum. M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Friday, the 4th day of May, 2012
C.C.NO. 122 /2011
Between:
E.Siva Ramanjineyulu
S/o E.Kristaiah
D.No.6/665
Narpala P.O. – 515 425
Anantapur District. …. Complainant
Vs.
1. K.M.Nagaraju
Assistant Director of Agriculture (ADA),
Market Yard Compound,
Bathalapalli Road,
Dharmavaram Post
Anantapur District.
2. A.Samba Siva Rao
Joint Director of Agriculture (JDA)
Near APCO Office,
Buddappa Nagar
Anantapur. ….. Opposite parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of the complainant in person and the opposite parties 1 & 2 in person and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri T.Sundara Ramaiah, President: - This complaint was filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 praying to punish the opposite parties as per the provisions of Right to Information Act.
2. Till now this Forum has been registering the matters in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Dr.S.P.Thirumala Rao Vs. Municipal Corporation, Mysore (RP 1975/2005) rendered on 28-05-2009. In the said decision, the Hon’ble National Commission held that notwithstanding the fact that the persons aggrieved on account of refusal of information sought under R.T.I. Act can approach the Consumer Fora for compensation notwithstanding the fact that they have statutory appeal before the Commissioner under R.T.I. Act.
3. However, in a subsequent decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission on 31-03-2011 in T.Pundalika Vs. Revenue Department (Service Division), Government of Karnataka (R.P.No.4061/2010), after referring to the decision in Dr.S.P.Thirumala Rao’s case, held that in the light of the fact that the aggrieved parties who fail to secure information under R.T.I. Act have effective remedy before the Appellate Authority under R.T.I. Act, they can not be treated as a “ consumer “ and as such the Consumer Protection Act can not come to their rescue either to obtain information which they could not secure. Therefore, the earlier decision in Dr.Thirumala Rao’s case can not have effect. Hence the law that rules the field as on today is that the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints from the persons aggrieved under R.T.I. Act. Therefore, we hold that this Forum has no jurisdiction to dispose off the matters. At the same time we can not dismiss the complaints since we have no jurisdiction and the only way out is to return them to file before the appropriate Appellate Authority under R.T.I. Act.
4. In view of the above, the complaint is returned to the complainant with direction to him to file before the Appellate Authority if he is so advised.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 4th day of May, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT ,
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES:
-NIL- - NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
- N I L-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
- NIL -
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR
