Content of the complaint is that complainant applied for G.N.M Course and her name was duly printed on GNM Course Session October 2019- September 2022 being number 36758 under SC Category but her name was omitted in the verification list. The complainant sent RTI application with IPO amounting to Rs 10/- (Rupees Ten) addressing to Principal nursing Officer, Nursing Training School, District Hospital. Balurghat, P.O.-Balurghat, Dist. - South Dinajpur on 17.08.2019 vide postal receipt No- EW888463991IN, IVR 6987888463991 dt. 17.08.2019. But elapse of long time recipient not yet sent any reply to the complainant. So it is a deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. Complainant paid requisite fees at the time of sending application as per rules prescribed in the Right to Information Act, so respondent evaded statutory provision of law. This complainant is suffering pecuniary loss and mental agony. It is also an unfair trade practice by the S.P.I.O. and C.P.I.O. There by intention of the legislature was frustrated.  Hence the complainant prayed for an order of direction to the OP to provide information to the Complainant forthwith and to pay rupees Two Lac for causing harassment and mental agony and to pay litigation cost of rupees Fifty Thousand.

Now, as per track report summon was delivered to the OP but no appearance is found in record on the part of Principal Nursing Officer, result of which ex-parte was fixed for the OP.

In order to substantiate complaint petition complainant examined herself wherein she stated that she applied for GNM Course and her name was duly printed for the Course for Session October 2019 to September 2022 under SC category. But her name was omitted in verification list. Hence she approached before this Commission to seek redressal under RTI act since she got no reply as to why her name was omitted. Her application was with IPO amounting Rs.10/-. OP not yet returned the IPO amount. This act on part of the OP is a deficiency in service & unfair trade practice which comes under the orbit of Consumer Protection Act.

As documentary evidence complainant filed a Xerox copy form under caption A Rule 5a., Postal receipt of sending the form, Photocopy of IPO and Xerox copy of list which said as merit list for verification of GNM course of session October 2019 to September 2022.

She also examined another witnessed in support of her claim as PW 2 namely Mr. Kanuram Sardar who is acquainted as the uncle of the complainant and knew about the facts of the case. The witnessed further deposed that he himself posted the application form of Nandita Sardar when OP furnished no reply of the queries of the complainant. 

DECISION WITH REASON

This Commission carefully perused entire record

First of all, to observe, there no authentic documents in the record for marking any lawful Exhibit, that any application alleged as RTI has been received by the authority/OP, even there no acknowledgement of receipt by the OP is also found in the record, save and except of sending postal receipt.   Secondly, the Xerox copy of a list in the caption of “merit List for GNM Course session for October 2019 to September 2022” though is found in record but that document bears no sign of seal/ signature of the authority that, it was any list which was published from the OP department.    Next (Thirdly) Xerox copy of a form under the Caption “A- Rule 5 a” is filed under the signature of the complainant where no date/ place is mentioned.

Naturally documents itself which were filed by the complainant certainly not very substantial or credible in respect of taking any full cognizance by any court of law or any commission/ forum. It were either not original or certified copy of any official original documents.

Next, at the advent of RTI act certainly a right has been accrued or grew for the Citizens to receive any information from all level i.e union/state/ local as well as recipients of govt. grants and has a right to know about any official documents etc. But equally it is the mandate on any official authority to be guided by the official secret act.  RTI act provides relief to the citizen about any types of questions in the matter of ‘What’ but in no way in the matter of ‘why?’, that means any interested person concern under RTI ACT can want to know about any official orders , list, vacancy etc. but not worthy to be informed why such orders , list etc. is passed?   Our Apex Court (Supreme Court) in a special leave petition (Civil) No. 34868 of 2009 observed “………..under the RTI act information is defined under section 2f which provides  information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, emails, opinion, advices, press release, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data, material held in any electronic form and information relation to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force. This definition shows that an applicant under section 6 of RTI act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law.  Off course under the RTI act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinion, advices, circulars, Orders etc have been passed……… .If any party feels aggrieved by the order/ judgment, the remedy available to such a party is either to challenge the same by way of appeal/ revision or any legally permissible mode. No litigant/ person can be allowed to seek information as to why and for what reasons a particular decision or conclusion takes effect…...……. under section 6 of RTI act an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the public authority under any other law for the time being in force………...” (Supreme Court)

In this case the content of the complaint as well as Xerox copy of Form A (rule 5a) complainant Nandita Sardar wanted the information under Point 5 clause (a) “Why the name of the applicant appeared in the list of selected contenders of GNM course session October 2019 to September 2022 being no 36758 under SC category and why the name omitted in the verification list?” In (Clause b) “What is the procedure adopted for verification of GNM Course session October 2019 September 2022?”.  So, This Commission think both the information as asked for are in the position of embargo in official capacity and come under the category of “why”?

Practically to say this Form A (Xerox copy) itself is not very clear to this Commission/ forum. Both the Columns of questions as ask for not apprehensible. We find her name was canvassed in the merit list of verification but complainant did not clear either in the complaint or through her evidence even in WNA, that what was her grievance or what was merit list or what was verification list, and in which list her name was not recommended. The list which she filed before the commission that entire list was not cleared as to her position in the merit list, the column of first pages of the list is not similar to the other pages of that list where she identified the name.   Hence the list itself is not legible one as to its all columns of pages where her name was exposed. Even we consider the second page of list is separate one not any continuation of first list but this second list bears no separate caption. 

Moreover there is appropriate authority in this regard for appeal against the question or grievances of the petitioner/ complainant under Section 19 of the RTI act and special penal provision is also provided there under section 20 of said act.  So the act/order/rejection or taking no cognizance of the application by the SPIO or CPIO (State Public Information Officer and Central Public Information Officer) is subject to appeal. Consumer Commission is not authority for giving any direction to the officer against their latches, on considering the complainant as a consumer merely for the reason that complainant send the application with IPO to the authority.

Accordingly the Complainant is directed to appear before proper forum.

Grievance is not entertained by the Commission. It falls in vain.

Hence          it is ordered,

that the complainant petition is dismissed without cost.

Let a copy of judgment/final order be supplied to the parties free of cost.