Present case came up for hearing during preliminary hearing on the point of admission of the complaint. Complainant has sought information under RTI Act 2005 from Civil Surgeon Office, Pathankot.

2.           The present complaint is viewed in the light of decision of the Hon'ble State Commission, Pb in the case First Appeal no.737 of 2012 in the case PIO, DDPO, Mohali Vs. Gurnam Kaur, Mohali wherein the  Hon'ble State Commission has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble National Commission rendered in Revision Petition No.4061 of 2010 decided on 31.03.2012 (T PUNDALIKA Vs. REVENUE DEPARTMENT (SERVICE DIVISION), GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA), that the complainant, feeling aggrieved by the non-furnishing of the information sought under the Act of 2005, does not fall under the definition of the "consumer". This matter has again recently drawn the attention of the Hon'ble National Commission in (SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA Vs. PIO, STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION (SIC) & ANR ) (1) (2015) CPJ 335 (NC). After taking into consideration the judgments on the point, it was held as under:-

              "25. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we hold 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 Fora 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 services rendered by the CPIO/PIO is maintainable before a Consumer Forum."

Thus, the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint filed by her before the District Forum was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed on that ground.

3.      The law points cited by complainant in the present complaint are not applicable in the present case in view of the settled law on the same point by Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi.

4.      Thus the present complaint does not fall under the ambit of CPA 2019 and hence the present complaint is not maintainable and  the same is dismissed in limine.

5.    Copy of the order be communicated to the party free of charges.   File be consigned.                                                                                  

                                                                                 (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                         President    

Announced:                                                               (R.S. Sukhija)

October 19, 2022                                                           Member

*MK*