Haryana

StateCommission

A/348/2015

THE DIRECTOR LIBERAL COLLEGE OF DISTANCE EDUCATION - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARESH SIHAG AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

SUNNY BHARDWAJ

10 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :    348 of 2015

Date of Institution:    17.04.2015

Date of Decision :    10.08.2015

 

The Director, Liberal College of Distance Education, Tosham, Authorized Study Centre No.1, Code No.431, 1^st Floor of State Bank of Patiala, Tosham.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

 

Versus

 

 

1.      Naresh Sihag, Advocate, Chamber No.175, District Court, Bhiwani.

 

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

2.      Public Information Officer-Cum-Registrar, Madras University, Chennai.

3.      Manoj Kumar, Director National College of Distance Education, Paras Wali Gali, Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.

Performa Respondents

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:               Shri Sunny Bhardwaj, Advocate for appellant.

                             Shri Ajit Sihag, Advocate for the respondent-complainant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          By filing the present appeal, The Director, Liberal College of Distance Education, Tosham-opposite party No.2 has challenged the order dated 17^th January, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani, whereby, complaint filed by Naresh Sihag-complainant was allowed. 

2.      Complainant (respondent herein) sought an information from the respondents on 01^st May, 2013 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘RTI Act’).  The respondents did not supply information to the complainant.  Hence, the complaint. 

3.      The respondents were proceeded ex parte before the District Forum. 

4.      The question for determination is as to whether or not the respondent-complainant falls within the domain of ‘Consumer’? 

5.      Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.3396 of 2013, titled as ‘Shri Kali Ram versus State Public Information Officer-Cum-Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner’ decided on October 9^th, 2013 held as under:-

“4.     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 make 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, overweighs 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.  

5.      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.Pundalika Vs. Revenue Department (Service Division) Government of Karnataka, RP No. 4061 of 2010, decided on 31.03.2011.  In this case it was held:-

“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.      Again, this Commission also took the same view in RP 3276/2012, Pothireddipalli Sugunavati Vs. Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., decided on 14.01.2013.”

6.      In view of the above, the complaint filed by the complainant before the District forum was not maintainable as the complainant cannot be considered as a ‘consumer’ as defined under the C.P. Act. 7.  Hence, the appeal is accepted, impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

 

Announced 10.08.2015

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK