IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 319/09 DATED 09.11.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant President, Karnataka Consumer’s Forum (Reg.) 93, 9th cross, Gokulam, 1st Stage, Mysore-570002.<br /> <br /> (INPERSON)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party 1. Sri. B.M. Prakash, Public Information Officer and Environment Officer, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, Regional Office, Plot No.436D, Hebbal Industrial Area, K.R.S. Road, Mysore-570020.<br /> 2. Sri. Nagaraj, Asst. Municipal Commissioner, Division-IV, Yadavagiri, Mysore-570020.<br /> <br /> (By Sri.T.P.D. for O.P.1, Advocate, O.P.2 is exparte)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 25.08.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 15.09.2009<br /> Date of order : 09.11.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 Month 24 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Complainant has filed the complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against opposite parties seeking direction to the first opposite party to furnish the information sought by the complainant and both the opposite parties jointly and severally pay Rs.50,000/-, compensation and cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint certain facts in detail, regarding Kukkarahalli lake at Mysore are narrated. In respect of degradation and extinction report, the complainant sought information from the fi4rst opposite party under Right To Information Act regarding action taken on the report of the B.N. Ramesh Kumar, along with fees of Rs.10/-. The copy of the application is at Annexure-H. It is alleged that, the opposite parties have failed to furnish the full and correct information and hence, deficiency in service is alleged.<br /> <br /> 3. The first opposite party filed lengthy version and amongst other facts, it is contended that, as per the application of the complainant dated 17.04.2007, the opposite party has replied on 16.05.2007, informing that the criminal case against the Commissioner, Mysore City Corporation has been filed and pending in JMFC second court Mysore. As regards the action taken by MUDA, City Corporation and University about clearing of encroachment, the step taken is narrated and further it is stated that compliance report has been sought from the said Authorities. Also it is contended that, this opposite party has no jurisdiction to clear the encroachment. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. The second opposite party despite the service of notice, has remained exparte.<br /> <br /> 5. To substantiate their respective contentions, both the parties have filed affidavits and produced certain documents. We have heard the complainant and the learned advocate for the first opposite party. Also we have perused the entire material on record.<br /> <br /> 6. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party and that he is entitled to any reliefs?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 7. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly in affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 8. Point no. 1:- At the outset, we would like to note that the narration of the entire facts and the contentions is not necessary, in view of the relief sought by the complainant.<br /> <br /> 9. As per annexure-H, the complainant had called upon the first opposite party to furnish information;<br /> <br /> 1. “1. Action taken on our letters dated 12.06.2006 regarding Kukkera Halli Lake and 20.06.2006 regarding Natural Contour Storm water drains encroachment in yadavagiri area (copies of letter enclosed for your reference)<br /> 2. Wether the Commissioner, MUDA, Mysore, Commissioner, Myosre City Municipal Corporation and Registrar, University of Mysore have complied with the directions issued by Karnataka State Pollution Controal Board, Bangalore in its letter dated 14.10.2003 regarding Kukkerahalli lake. (Clearing encroachments in Poornaiah Canal for the stretch of 3 Kms).<br /> 3. If not, whether any legal action has been initiated against the officers concerned.<br /> 4. If no legal action has been initiated the reasons for the same.”<br /> <br /> 10. The reply of the first opposite party is on page 36 of the documents produced by the complainant. So for concerned to the first information, the opposite party has informed that the board has filed criminal case against the Commissioner, Mysore City Corporation on 10.01.2007, before JMFC second Mysore at PCR 1018-2006 and the accused have appeared before the court and are on bail and the hearing date is also mentioned. Hence, so for concerned to the first information that was sought by the complainant, has been furnished by the first opposite party.<br /> <br /> 11. As regards, second information as to whether the three Authorities have complied with the directions, it is stated in the said letter by the first opposite party that, information from the said three Authorities has been called for and on receipt of the same, will be provided.<br /> <br /> 12. In view of the above, the two other informations at three and four, will not survive.<br /> <br /> 13. The complainant submitted that, the information furnished by the first opposite party is not full and complete. It is true, the first opposite party has furnished information in respect of the action taken stating that, complaint has been filed. So for concerned to the second information, the first opposite party has not furnished information, but simply stated that information has been called for from the three Authorities and on receipt of the same, will be provided. Thus, the complainant submitted that, the first opposite party having not furnished information, there is deficiency in service of its part.<br /> <br /> 14. Section 6(3) of the Right To Information Act, is pointed out by the complainant wherein it is provided that “where an application is made to a public authority requesting for an information, which is held by another public authority or the subject matter of which is more closely connected with the functions of another public authority, the public authority, to which such application is made, shall transfer the application or such part of it as may be appropriate to the other public authority and inform the applicant immediately about such a transfer”. Thus, the complainant submitted that, it was an obligatory on the part of the first opposite party to transfer the application that he had submitted to other Authorities noted above, if at all the first opposite party was not able to furnish the information on the ground, the said information pertains to said Authorities. It is true, as provided in the said sub section, the first opposite party aught to have transferred the part of the application to the said Authorities. But, however the first opposite party has called upon the information from the said three Authorities and it was informed to the complainant that, information will be provided on receipt of the same from the said Authorities. Under the circumstances, though technically there is deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party, it has taken steps on the application of the complainant and more over furnished information to the extent that, it was available with it.<br /> <br /> 15. Considering the entire facts, to meet the ends of justice, it is suffice to direct to the first opposite party to transfer part of the application to the said three Authorities to furnish the information directly to the complainant, so for concerned to the respective three Authorities. With this observation, our finding is partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 16. Point No. 2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The first opposite party is hereby directed to transfer part of the application of the complainant copy of which is at annexure-H to the MUDA, Mysore, Mysore City Corporation, Mysore and the Registrar, University of Mysore as provided under Section 6(3) under Right To Information Act, within a week from the date of this order.<br /> 3. There is no order as to cost.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 9th November 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />