Orissa

Ganjam

CC/65/2024

ANAND KUMAR SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PIO-SP OFFICE-GANJAM - Opp.Party(s)

09 Jul 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GANJAM, BERHAMPUR.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/65/2024
( Date of Filing : 03 Jun 2024 )
 
1. ANAND KUMAR SHARMA
O/O THE ADVOCATES CHAMBER C-1176, SECTOR-6, MARKAT NAGAR, CUTTACK-753014, ODISHA 9348105872
GANJAM
ODISHA
2. T.K DWIBEDI ADVOCATE
C-1176,SECTOR-6,MARKAT NAGAR , CUTTACK,-753014,ODISHA
CUTTACK
ODISHA
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. PIO-SP OFFICE-GANJAM
O/O THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GANJAM CHHATRAPUR 761020, ODISHA
GANJAM
ODISHA
2. THE TRANSPARANCY OFFICE
O/O THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GANJAM CHHATRAPUR 761020, ODISHA
GANJAM
ODISHA
3. THE SECTION OFFICER
O/O THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GANJAM CHHATRAPUR 761020, ODISHA
GANJAM
ODISHA
4. SANJAY KUMAR SINGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY INFORMATION
KHORDHA
ODISHA
5. THE SECRETARY
O/O- THE ODISHA INFORMATION COMMISSION B-1 BLOCK, TOSHALI PLAZA , SATYA NAGAR , BHUBANSWAR -751007, ODISHA
KHORDHA
ODISHA
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Satish Kumar Panigrahi PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Saritri Pattanaik MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 09 Jul 2024
Final Order / Judgement

 

                                                DATE OF DISPOSAL: 09.07.2024.

 

 

 

EXTRACT COPY OF ORDER DATED 09.07.2024.

 

                     The complainant is absent on repeated calls and no steps filed today. The Commission perused the case record and it is found that an ample of opportunities provided to the complainant for admission hearing but the complainant remained absent consistently in the Commission and no steps filed in any point of time in either ways. It is apparent from the case record that the complainant has filed the complaint through e-filing wherein at Para 5 Jurisdiction & Fee – it is specifically stated that, ‘So the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cuttack, Odisha has the jurisdiction to accept and try this complaint against the opposition party(s).’ Hence this Commission has no jurisdiction to accept and try it. Further it is also manifest from the case record that, the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in this Commission, since this matter is beyond the jurisdiction of this Commission and there is a separate grievance redressal system for R.T.I. petitions under the R.T.I. Act. Consumer Protection Act and R.T.I. Act are two different and governed by different laws. An R.T.I. applicant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act as ruled by the full bench of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

In view of the principle of law laid down in the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 3146 of 2012, judgment pronounced on 08.01.2015 the complaint of the complainant is dismissed due to devoid of merits.

In the light of the above decision of law, the Commission dismissed the case. No order as to cost.

                        This case is disposed of accordingly.

The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Order.

 

 

 

 

Pronounced on 09.07.2024.               

                                                    

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Satish Kumar Panigrahi]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Saritri Pattanaik]
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.