Andhra Pradesh

Kurnool

CC/129/2011

M.Giri, S/o Ramaiah, Buddhist, Co-Ordinator,Sravathi Human Rights Organisation - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.Manohar Rao,S/o P.Bramhaiah, The Public Information Officer (P.I.O) and Sub-Divisional Police Off - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

29 Feb 2012

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/129/2011
 
1. M.Giri, S/o Ramaiah, Buddhist, Co-Ordinator,Sravathi Human Rights Organisation
C/o H.No.45-185/20 F, Narasimha Reddy Nagar, Kurnool- 518 004
Kurnool
Andhra Pradesh
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. P.Manohar Rao,S/o P.Bramhaiah, The Public Information Officer (P.I.O) and Sub-Divisional Police Officer (S.D.P.O),O/o Sub-Divisional Police Office, Kurnool - 518 001
R/o H.No.14/258, Gouli Geri, Kurnool - 518 001
Kurnool
Andhra Pradesh
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com., B.L. PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Sri.M.Kirshna Reddy, M.Sc, M.Phil., MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President

And

Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member

And

         Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Wednesday the 29th day of February, 2012

C.C.No.129/2011

Between:

 

M.Giri, S/o Ramaiah, Buddhist, Co-Ordinator,Sravathi Human Rights Organisation,

C/o H.No.45-185/20 F, Narasimha Reddy Nagar, Kurnool- 518 004.    

 

                                                    Complainant

 

                                       -Vs-

 

P.Manohar Rao,S/o P.Bramhaiah, The Public Information Officer (P.I.O) and  Sub-Divisional Police Officer (S.D.P.O),O/o Sub-Divisional Police Office,  Kurnool - 518 001,

R/o H.No.14/258, Gouli Geri,Kurnool - 518 001.                                                              

 

      ...Opposite ParTy

 

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri In Person for complainant and Sri Ch.Joga Rao, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

                                    ORDER

(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)

C.C. No. 129/2011

 

1.     This complaint is filed under section 13 of C. P. Act, 1986 Praying to direct the opposite party:-

 

  1. To furnish the required information to the complainant;

 

  1.   To grant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony;
  2. To grant the cost of the complainant;

And

  1.  To grant any such other relief as the Honourable Forum deems to be fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

                                    

2.    The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- On 29-06-2011  the complainant requested the opposite party to furnish some information pertaining to S.C., S.T. Cases.  The complainant did not receive any information from the opposite party.  The opposite party is bound to supply information as required by the complainant.  The complainant preferred an Appeal to the Appellate Authority under Rule 19(3) of the R.T.I. Act, 2005.  The Appellate Authority by its order dated 16-07-2011 directed the opposite party to furnish the information to the complainant.  But the opposite party did not furnish any information to the complainant.  The information sought by the complainant is very much necessary and essential.  Due to negligent attitude of the opposite party the complainant suffered lot of mental agony.  Hence the complaint.

 

3.     Opposite party filed counter stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  The complainant made an application without specifying the particulars of the information sought.  The information asked by the complainant is vague.  No specific period regarding the information is mentioned in the application.  The requisite application fee is not paid by the complainant.  There is no cause of action to the complainant.  There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 4.    On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A3 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed.  On behalf of the opposite party Ex.B1 to B3 are marked and sworn affidavit of the opposite party is filed.

5.     Complainant not filed written arguments.  Opposite party filed written arguments.

 

6.     Now the points that arise for consideration are:

 

  1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?

 

  1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

 

  1. To what relief?

 

7.      POINTS i and ii :- Admittedly the complainant made an application to the opposite party seeking some information under R.T.I. Act, 2005.  As the opposite party failed to furnish the said information the complainant preferred an Appeal to the Appellate Authority.  Ex.A1 is the copy of the application made by the complainant to the opposite party.  Ex.A2 is the copy of the appeal made by the complainant.  The Appellate Authority directed the opposite party under Ex.A3 to furnish the information sought by the complainant.  The opposite party failed to comply the direction of the Appellate Authority.  The complainant preferred this complaint as the opposite party did not comply directions of the Appellate Authority.

 

8.     It is the contention of the opposite party that the complainant did not pay the required application fee and that the information asked by the complainant is vague and not specific.  It is further contention of the opposite party that the present complaint is not maintainable.  Admittedly the complainant did not mention in his application the specific information sought. In the Revision Petition No.4061/2010 [T.Pundlika –Vs- Revenue Department (Service Division) Government of Karnataka] the National Commission held that the petitioner under R.T.I. Act, 2005 cannot be claimed to be a Consumer under the Consumers Protection Act, 2005.  In view of the decision cited above it can be said that the complainant herein is not a Consumer as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of the C.P. Act.  The present complainant who sought information under R.T.I. Act cannot be termed as a Consumer under section 2 (1) (d) of the C.P. Act, and the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief.

 

 9.    In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

 

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 29th day of February, 2012.

 

Sd/-                                      Sd/-                                 Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                     PRESIDENT                 LADY MEMBER

                              

                                 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                    Witnesses Examined

 

For the complainant : Nil                 For the opposite party: Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1                Office copy of the application made by the complainant to

                the opposite party dated 29-06-2011.

 

Ex.A2.       Office copy of the Appeal made by the complainant to the

Appellate Authority cum S.D.O., Kurnool

dated 09-07-2011.

 

Ex.A3                Memorandum C.No.65/G-2/RTI/2011 issued by OSD

                (Admn) Kurnool dated 16-07-2011.

 

List of exhibits marked for the opposite party-

 

Ex.B1                Application made by the complainant to the opposite party

                dated 29-06-2011.

 

Ex.B2                Letter C.No.1358/SDPO-K/2011 issued by Sub Divisional

Police Officer, Kurnool dated 28-08-2011.

 

Ex.B3                Postal Receipt.

 

 

Sd/-                                    Sd/-                                    Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                 PRESIDENT                   LADY MEMBER

 

 

    // Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the

A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

 

 

 

 

 

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties  :

Copy was made ready on             :

Copy was dispatched on               :

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com., B.L.]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Sri.M.Kirshna Reddy, M.Sc, M.Phil.,]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L.,]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.