Adv.for the complainant- None.
Adv.for the Opp.Parties- None.
Date of filing of the case – 30.04.2014
Date of order of the case - 22.08.2014
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara,President.
The case of the fact is that Raghunath Rath the petitioner sought some information under RTI Act and paid the statutory fees under the Act.
2. The application made on dated 15.05.2012.The information sought on St.Anne’s School, Titilagarh that NOC issued by the Government of Odisha is being complied with the guidelines.? The complainant averred, the District Education Officer is well aware of that the private school is not coming under RTI purview, whereas the private authority denied to co-operate. Then the complaint lodged with 1st appellate and consequently 2nd appellate authority at Bhubaneswar, being disposed off on dated 01.03.2013, directing the District Education Officer to enable inspection opportunity to the file under which the NOC is issued to St.Annes School Titilagarh. The direction has not yet complied by the DEC Titilagarh, Admitting at latter the principal of the school, supplied some information which is not sought in either way. The complainant approached the authority repeatedly and also exhausts the subsequent forums consecutively but all attempt deliberately derailed by the PIO and officer in charge for such helm of affairs. The petitioner relied on documents- letter No.15602/SME/06.07.2013, SIC/Appeal No-1568/2012 and an affidavit.
3. The petitioner stated the activity of DEO is not to cope the statutory obligation, which caused a lot of mental and physical harassment. Even the DEO give disregard to the direction of State Information Commissioner, which amply speaks gross deficiency of service.
4. It is further stated the O.P.2 has ample power to withdraw NOC given to the school or recommended Govt. to withdraw. Even the guidelines issued by OPEPA has not been submitted the same to D.I of concerned school on rendering service as contemplated by the C.P.Act amounts to deficiency of service thereby harassment and mental agony sustained be compensated as per the Act.
5. On notice the opposite party appeared and filed the version contending, the case is not maintainable as there is no provision under RTI Act to file any case, in any court of law challenging the activity of PIO and this case be rejected, being not maintainable.
6. The opposite party averred Section-21 of RTI.Act 2005 does not provide space to institute any case against the P.I.O. And further submitted that Section-23 of RTI. Act 2005 provides-“No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act.
7. The R.T.I, application filed on 17.05.2012 in respect of Annexure-I, has been received on 25.05.2012 and transferred as per section 6(3) of the RTI Act on dated 07.06.2012 to supply the information.
8. The opposite party admitted, the complainant Raghunath Rath has made an application to 1st Appellate Authority-cum- District education Officer, Bolangir and the School principals has intimated the non-coverage of RTI Act on the school. In view of such provisions and sections, the case is liable to be dismissed.
9. Heard the complainant and P.I.O at length. Perused the materials on record and gone through the extensive submissions as made by both the learned ends.
10. As the point of maintainability, we rely on a decision by the Apex court- the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd Vs. N.K. Modi, III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC)- in which it is held- it must be held that provisions of the Act are to construed widely to give effect to the object and purpose of the Act. It is seen that Section-3 of C.P. Act envisages that the provisions of the Act are in addition to and are not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force.
11. The bare reading of the act, of section 2(o) reads “ service” means service of any description………………..amusement on the purveying of news or other information, but does not………… personal service.
12. In this case the complainant sought information in giving the statutory fees, which not denied nor RTI application is rejected rather admitted. So the petitioner is a consumer and case is within the jurisdiction and not barred of limitation. So it is maintainable.
13. The O.P has advanced that under section 21 and 23 of RTI Act, the case is not maintainable. We found the contention has no force to retain a berth as because the concerned P.I.O & the 1st appellate authority has not passed any order and the commission of such deficiency has rightly assailed in 2nd appellate forum at Bhubaneswar. Even that direction not been complied by the P.I.O and we found such action fingers the collusive exercise by the Government and private authority to derail the true purpose in soughting the information.
14. The application by the complainant is neither a suit nor a prosecution or a legal proceeding done in a good faith. Rather we come across, the nature of work conferred to the responsible officer by the statute is amply speaks same is stage managed in crooked way and rightly assert the officer is in fault and committed in gross deficiency in manner not carrying either with law or with others.
ORDER.
It is directed, the District Education Officer played truant with the law, hence, the PIO is liable to pay a sum of Rs 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) oly, from his pocket to the petitioner as compensation towards harassment and deliberate mental agony sustained along with cost of Rs 500/- (Rupees five hundred) only, towards legal expenses incurred, within thirty days of this order, failing which @ 12% interest per annum will accrue on entire sum from the date of application till realization of payment without fail.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST 2014.
I agree.
(S.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
