The record is put up today for consideration of the complaint on the point of admissibility. The complainant namely Anand  Kumar Sharma has filed a consumer complaint u/s 35 of the C.P.Act, 2019 against the above named Ops. through e-filing  on 28.11.2023 alongwith complaint  in the name of Tapas Kumar Dwibedi with other documents seeking  several reliefs due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the ground stated therein as” the O.P. did not provide any service for the money taken in advance” under R.T.I. Act,2005. Further, he has furnished the copies of complaint alongwith certain documents through post on 04.12.2023.

Heard.  Perused the complaint and documents therein. The complainant  namely Tapas Kumar Dwibedi had filed an R.T.I. application on 28.07.2023 along with application  fee of Rs. 10/-  vide e-chalian Ref.ID.No:35B87F24CF with the FS & CW Department, Govt. of Odisha which was transferred to the PIO of DCDRC, Jajpur on 11.08.2023. The PIO, DCDRC, Jajpur had disposed of the RTI application on 19.08.2023.

The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a complete code in itself, which provides an adequate and effective remedy to the person aggrieved from any decision/inaction/act/ omission or misconduct of a CPIO/PIO. Not only does the Act provide for two appeals, it also provides for a complaint to the Central Information Commission/ State Information Commission,  as  the  case  may  be,  where  the  CPIO/PIO  does not give his decision, on the application within the prescribed time. Therefore, a complaint under C.P..Act is not maintainable as per the provision u/s 100 of the C.P.Act, 2019 related to R.T.I. Act, 2005.

In such circumstances, the complainant Tapas Kumar Dwibedi and his associates Anand Kumar Sharma are not the consumer u/s 2(7) & as per the provision u/s 100 of the C.P.Act, 2019 regarding information under the provision of R.T.I. Act, 2005. The approach made by them to this Commission seeking relief under the provision of C.P.Act, 2019 is misconceived as the present consumer complaint is not maintainable, against the fee required as per the provision under the R.T.I. Act, 2005. Hence, the District Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint arising out of the order passed under the R.T.I. Act, 2005.

Consequently, no complaint by a person alleging deficiency in services rendered by the CPIO/PIO is maintenable before the Consumer Commission.

Hence, the present consumer complaint is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission with the complainants is at liberty to approach the appropriate Adjudicating  Authority for redressal of their grievance. No costs.

Accordingly, the consumer complaint No. 211/2023 is disposed of .

Issue extract of the order to the complainants.