Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/168/2014

V.Gopalakrishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Public Information Officer, Corporation of Chennai - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.V.Gopalakrishnan

17 Apr 2015

ORDER

 

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.NOS.168/2014, 169/2014 & 170/2014

(Against the Common order in CC.No.202/2012, C.C.No.203/2012 & 204/2012 dated 16.12.2013 on the file of DCDRF, Chennai (North)

DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF APRIL 2015

C.C.NO.202/2012

V.Gopalakrishnan,

13/7, Pammal Nalla Thambi Street,

M.G.R.Nagar,                                                    Appellant / Complainant

Chennai 78.

-vs-

 

The Public Information Officer,

Corporation of Chennai,

Ribbon Building,                                                 Respondent /Opposite party

EVR Salai, Chennai -3.

 

C.C.NO.203/2012

 

V.Gopalakrishnan,

13/7, Pammal Nalla Thambi Street,

M.G.R.Nagar,                                                    Appellant / Complainant

Chennai 78.

-vs-

 

The Public Information Officer,

Corporation of Chennai,

Ribbon Building,                                                 Respondent /Opposite party

EVR Salai, Chennai -3.

 

C.C.NO.204/2012

 

V.Gopalakrishnan,

13/7, Pammal Nalla Thambi Street,

M.G.R.Nagar,                                                    Appellant / Complainant

Chennai 78.

-vs-

The Public Information Officer,

Corporation of Chennai,

Ribbon Building,                                                 Respondent /Opposite party

EVR Salai, Chennai -3.

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 12.03.2015, and upon perusing the materials records, this commission made the following Common order.

Appellant/ Complainant                :      Party in person                    

Respondent/ Opposite party          :      Called absent

                                                                       COMMON ORDER

J.JAYARAM,  JUDICIAL MEMBER

          All these three appeals are filed by the complainant against the common order passed by the District Forum, Chennai (North) in CC.No.202/2012, CC.No.203/2012 & 204/2012 dated 16.12.2013 dismissing the complaint.

2.       All the three complaints are filed by the same complainant claiming compensation from the opposite party for the deficiency in service in not furnishing the information sought by him from the opposite party under RTI Act.

3.       The opposite party has resisted the claim on the ground that the complaints are not maintainable before the Consumer Forum and that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints.

4.       The District Forum considered the rival contentions and dismissed the complaints holding that the complaints are not maintainable and also that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the District Forum the complainant has preferred these appeals.

6.       First we have to decide the point whether the complaints are 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 1^st 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 complaints are not maintainable before the Consumer Forum and there is no merit in the appeals.

13.               In the result, all the three appeals are dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaints.  No order as to costs in the appeals.

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                         J.JAYARAM                           R.REGUPATHI

     MEMBER                               (J) MEMBER                             PRESIDENT

 

INDEX : YES/ NO

VL/D;/PJM/RTI