The case is posted today for payment of cost by complainant & hearing. Neither the complainant nor his Advocate is present nor taken any steps. Advocate for the O.Ps is also absent, no steps filed. On repeated calls, none respond on behalf of the complainant. Hence, hearing of the case could not be taken up.   

                                         In the present case, the O.Ps were appeared and filed written versions. As it appears from the case record, the complainant did not turn up and slept over the matter since 26.09.2018 and no step is taken on his behalf, for which hearing of the case impaired and the valuable time of this Commission is being wasted.

                                         On going through the case record, it is seen from the complaint petition filed by the complainant against the P.I.O, Nilgiri Block, Nilgiri, Balasore & the B.D.O- cum- 1^st Appellate Authority, Nilgiri Block, Nilgiri, Balasore for not supply of information sought for under the RTI Act before the P.I.O of the concerned office seeking certain information to which the P.I.O concerned intentionally did not supplied the information within the stipulated period, violating the provisions of law causing him mental agony and loss. The O.Ps appeared and filed his written version only challenging the maintainability of the case before this Commission.

                                         Before delve into the merit of the case, it is felt necessary to decide the pivot question regarding the maintainability of the case. No doubt, the complainant has filed the case against the P.I.O and it is to be seen how far the complainant comes under the definition of a consumer as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now C.P Act, 2019).

                                         Hon’ble National Commission in a case of Sanjay Kumar Mishra and others –v- Public Information Officer (PIO) and others reported in 2015 (1) CPR 171 (NC), have been pleased to observed that –

“(i) the person seeking information under the provisions of RTI Act cannot be said to be a consumer vis-à-vis the Public Authority concerned or CPIO/PIO nominated by it, and (ii) the jurisdiction of the Consumer For a to intervene in the matters arising out of the provisions of the RTI Act is barred by necessary implication as also under the provisions of Section-23 of the said Act. Consequently no complaint by a person alleging deficiency in the services rendered by the CPIO/PIO is maintainable before a Consumer Forum.”

                                         Apart from it, Section-23 of the RTI Act speaks itself that- No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act.

                                         In response to the observations of the Hon’ble National Commission as well as the statute, as cited above, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint petition alleging deficiency in the services rendered by the P.I.O is not maintainable before the Consumer Commission.

                                         From the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs and taking into consideration the nature and conduct of the complainant, this Commission is of the view that the complaint of the complainant merits no consideration and thus, the same is dismissed, as not maintainable.

                                         Inform both the parties accordingly.