BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 07/10/2014

Date of Order : 09/10/2014

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 749/2014

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. This complaint has been preferred by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on their part in not furnishing information under Right to Information Act.

2. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and perused the documents submitted by the complainant.

3. Firstly, this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, since no part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum.

4. Secondly, there is no consumer-service provider relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties, since the complainant has not availed any service from the opposite parties.

5. The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Shri. Kali Ram Vs. State Public Information Officer-cum-Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner 2013 (4) CPR 559 (NC), held in para 7, 8 and 9 read as follows :-

“7. The key controversy swirls round the question “Whether there lies a rub for the consumer fora to entertain the case pertaining to the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short 'RTI Act')? The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum partly allowed the complaint on the ground that these cases come within the realm of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum relied upon the following authorities :

1. Kalavathi & Others V. United Vaish Co-operative thrift

   & Credit Society Limited..

2. Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. V. N.K. Modi.

3. DR. S.P. Thirunmala Rao Vs. Municipal

   Commissioner.

8. We do not locate substance in the arguments advanced by the petitioner. First of all, Sections 22 & 23 of the RTI Act, 2005 are crystal clear, and the same are hereby reproduced :-

“22. Act to have overriding effect :- The provision of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. From this, it is beyond doubt that this Act, however, has on overriding effect in that the authorities under this Act may take independent decisions about the question whether such disclosure or non-disclosure has any overriding public interest. Therefore, it may become necessary for the authorities to independently decide whether disclosure of information which itself being an act done in public interest, over weighs the public interest sought to be protected under those enactments.

23. Bar of Jurisdiction of Courts :- No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made this Act, and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act.”

Again, Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005, provides procedure for appeal.

9. This view stands emboldened by a recent judgment by a Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.M. Malik and Hon'ble Dr. B.C. Gupta in the case of Smt. Tasleem Bint Hussain Vs. The State Public Information Officer, revision petition No. 737 of 2013 decided on 1^st March, 2013 and the judgment rendered by a Bench headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, President in the case of T. Pandalika V. Revenue Department (Service Decision) Government of Karnataka RP No. 4061 of 2010

“Respondent, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been allowed by observing thus :-

“At the outset, it is not in dispute that complainant had filed an application u/s. 6 & 7 of the Right to Information Act to the Op No.4. But complainant cannot be considered as a 'consumer' as defined under the C.P. Act since there is a remedy available for the complainant to approach the appellate authority u/s 19 of the RTI Act, 2005.”

“We agree with the view taken by the fora below. Petitioner cannot be claimed to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. There is a remedy available for him to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. Dismissed.”

6. A similar view was taken by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the following decisions :-

1. S. Dorai Raj Vs. Divisional Personnel Officer & Nodal Public Information Officer I (2014) 444 (NC).

2. Public Information Officer, Urban Improvement Trust Ajmeer Vs. Tarun Agarwal II (2014) CPJ 167 (NC)

3. B. Vasudeva Shetty Vs. The Chief Manager II (2013) CPJ 4B (NC) (CN).

4. Shri. Kali Ram Vs. State Public Information Officer-Cum-Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner RP No. 3396/2013 decided on 09-10-2013.

7. In view of the above, we are of the firm opinion that the remedy of the complainant lies elsewhere and not before this Forum. Accordingly, we are only to direct the complainant to receive back the complaint and the related documents to submit before the appropriate Forum, if so advised.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 9^th day of October 2014.

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Senior Superintendent.