PON RAMESH filed a consumer case on 16 Apr 2015 against PUBLIC INFORMATION COMMISSIONER in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is FA/191/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 06 May 2015.
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI
BEFORE : HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI PRESIDENT
THIRU.J.JAYARAM JUDICIAL MEMBER
TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI MEMBER
F.A.NO.191/2014
(Against the order in CC.No.10/2013, dated 09.04.2014 on the file of DCDRF, Tiruvarur)
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF APRIL 2015
Pon.Ramesh,
S/o.Ponnusamy,
1/185, Railyadi Street,
28, Kurumbal, Manali (PO), Appellant / Complainant
Thiruthuraipoondi (T.K.).
-vs-
The Public Information Commissioner,
District Collector and PA to
District Collector, Respondent /Opposite party
District Collector Office,
Tiruvarur.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 11.03.2015, and on hearing the arguments on both sides and upon perusing the materials records, this commission made the following order.
Appellant / Complainant : Party in person
Counsel for Respondent /Opposite party : M/s.T.Ravikumar
J.JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order passed by the District Forum, Tiruvarur in CC.No.10/2013, dated 09.04.2014 dismissing the complaint.
2. The complaint is filed by the complainant claiming compensation from the opposite party for the deficiency in service in not furnishing the information sought by the complainant from the opposite party under RTI Act.
3. The opposite party has resisted the claim on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum and that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
4. The District Forum considered the rival contentions and dismissed the complaint holding that the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
5. Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the District Forum the complaint has preferred this appeal.
6. First we have to decide the point whether the complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
7. It is settled law that any application involving under RTI Act does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and other Forums are specifically barred.
8. The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Kali Ram –vs- State Public Information Officer – cum-Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner reported in IV (2013) CPJ 300 (NC) has laid down that complaint involving RTI Act, is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum/ Commission, in which it is held as follows:
“ Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2 (1) (d), 21 (b) – Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 19 – Consumer – Information from Public Information Officer – Complainant cannot be considered as ‘ Consumer’ under Consumer Protection Act since there is remedy available for complainant to approach appellate authority under Section 19 of RTI Act.., 2005 – Complaint not maintainable.”
“22. Act to have overriding effect :-
The provision of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding, anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. From this, it is beyond doubt that this Act, however, has an overriding effect in that the authorities under this Act may make independent decisions about the question whether such disclosure or non-disclosure has any overriding public interest. Therefore, it may become necessary for the authorities to independently decide whether disclosure of information which itself being an act done in public interest, overweighs the public interest ought to be protected under those enactments.
23. Bar of Jurisdiction of Courts –
No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceedings 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”.
9. The Hon’ble National Commission has further held as follows:
“This view stands emboldened by a recent judgment by a Bench consisting of Hon’ble Mr.Justice J.M.Malik and Hon’ble Dr.B.C.Gupta in the case of Smt.Tasleem Bint Hussain –vs- The State Public Information Officer, Revision Petition No.737 of 2013 decided on 1st March, 2013 and the judgment rendered by a Bench headed by Hon’ble Mr.Justice Ashok Bhan, President, in the case of T.Pundalika –vs- Revenue Department (Service Division) Government of Karnataka. RP No.4061 of 2010, decided on 31.03.2011.”
10. The Hon’ble National Commission, in the case of Dorai Raj -vs- Divisional Personnel Officer & Nodal Public Information Officer, Southern Railway, Mudurai & Anr, reported in I (2014) CPJ 444 (NC), has held as follows:
“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 (b) – Right to Information Act, 2005 – Jurisdiction – Disclosure of Information – Maintainability of complaint – RTI Act is a code in itself – It provides for remedies available under this Act to person who has been denied any information – Remedy available under RTI Act – Complaint not maintainable.”.
11. The RTI Act is a Code in itself. It provides for remedies available under this Act to a person who has been denied any information. Since, petitioner has specific remedy available to him under the RTI Act and which he has already availed, the consumer complaint does not lie under the Act.”
12. In the light of the above decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission we hold that the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum and there is no merit in the appeal.
13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint. No order as to costs in the appeal.
P.BAKIYAVATHI J.JAYARAM R.REGUPATHI
MEMBER (J) MEMBER PRESIDENT
INDEX : YES/ NO
VL/D;/PJM/RTI
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.