The case record is posted today for hearing of the case. Neither the complainant nor his counsel is present. OP is also absent. On repeated calls, none respond on behalf of both the parties.

                                         In the present case, the OP has made his appearance and filed written version. Hence, the matter is taken up suomoto for order taking into account the pleadings of both the parties and documents relied upon by them.

                                         On going through the case record, it is seen from the complaint petition filed by the complainant against the PIO, Office of the District Fisheries-cum-FFDA/BFDA, Balasore to the effect that on 16.02.2018, he made an application under the RTI Act before the PIO of the concerned office seeking certain informations to which the PIO concerned intentionally did not supplied the informations within the stipulated period violating the provisions of law causing him mental agony and loss. The OP appeared and filed his written version only challenging the maintainability of the case before this Commission.

                                         Before delve into the merit of the case, it is felt necessary to decide the pivot question regarding the maintainability of the case. No doubt, the complainant has filed the case against the PIO and it is to be seen how far the complainant comes under the definition of a consumer as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

                                         Hon’ble National Commission in a case of Sanjay Kumar Mishra and others –v- Public Information Officer (PIO) and others reported in 2015 (1) CPR 171 (NC), have been pleased to observed that –

“(i) the person seeking information under the provisions of RTI Act cannot be said to be a consumer vis-à-vis the Public Authority concerned or CPIO/PIO nominated by it, and (ii) the jurisdiction of the Consumer For a to intervene in the matters arising out of the provisions of the RTI Act is barred by necessary implication as also under the provisions of Section-23 of the said Act. Consequently no complaint by a person alleging deficiency in the services rendered by the CPIO/PIO is maintainable before a Consumer Forum.”

                                         Apart from it, Section-23 of the RTI Act speaks itself that- 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.

                                         In response to the observations of the Hon’ble National Commission as well as the statute, as cited above, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the complainant is not a consumer and the complaint petition alleging deficiency in the services rendered by the PIO is not maintainable before the Consumer Commission. Consequently, the complaint petition merits no consideration and thus, the same is dismissed, as not maintainable.

                                         Inform both the parties accordingly.