Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President
1) The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer to direct the opponents to provide information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and to remove the deficiency in service and to discontinue unfair trade practice of the opponents. He has also prayed for compensation and to direct the Chief Information Commissioner to take action against the opponents under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2) The O.P.No.3 appeared and filed application submitting that the remedy available to the complainant is the appeal with the concern appellate authority under the Right to Information Act and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Therefore, both the parties were heard on the point of preliminary objection i.e. whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
3) The complainant has submitted that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is additional remedy therefore the present complaint is maintainable. For this purpose, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Abhay Narayan Raje –Versus- Shrikant Ramesh Bhalerao dated 5th August, 2010. This judgment is under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The Hon’ble High Court has held that jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum is not barred under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. Another judgment is of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Writ Petition(Civil)No.7265 of 2007 decided on 25th September, 2009 in the case of Poorna Prajna Public School –Versus- Central Information Commission & Others. In this judgment, it was held that the minutes once circulated to the officer of the Directorate of Education have to be regarded as information accessible to the Directorate of Education and therefore those are covered under the Right to Information Act. The complainant has also placed reliance on the judgment of Central Information Commission dated 15th September, 2008 in the case of Ms.Bindu Khanna –Versus- Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi. In this judgment, it was held that all the schools are performing public function and they are covered under the Right to Information Act. The complainant has further placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.1975 of 2005 in case of Dr.S.P.Thirumala Rao –Versus- Municipal Commissioner Mysore City Municipal Corporation decided 28th May, 2009. In view of this judgment, complaint is maintainable before the District Consumer Forum. This judgment is discussed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the recent judgment in Revision Petition No.3396 of 2013 in the case of Shri Kali Ram –Versus- State Public Information Officer dated 9th October, 2013. In this judgment, the Hon’ble National Commission has discussed three judgments i.e.
i) Kalawathi & Others Vs. United Vaish Co-operative thrift & Credit Society Limited, reported in I (2002) CPJ 71 (NC)
ii) Fair Air Engineers Pvt. Ltd., & Anr. V N.K. Modi reported in III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC)
iii)DR. S.P. Thirumala Rao vs. Municipal Commissioner,
revision petition No. 1975 of 2005 decided on 28th May, 2009
The Hon’ble National Commission discussed the provision u/s 22 and 23 of Right to Information Act, 2005. In para 5 and 6 of the judgment, the Hon’ble National Commission has laid down as under :-
5. 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. In this case it was held:-
“Respondent, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been allowed by observing thus:-
“At the outset, it is not in dispute that complainant had filed an application u/s 6 & 7 of the Right to Information Act to the OP No.4. But complainant cannot be considered as a ‘consumer’ as defined under the C.P.Act since there is a remedy available for the complainant to approach the appellate authority u/s 19 of the RTI Act, 2005”.
“We agree with the view taken by the fora below. Petitioner cannot be claimed to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. There is a remedy available for him to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. Dismissed.”.
6. Again, this Commission also took the same view in RP 3276/2012, Pothireddipalli Sugunavati Vs. Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., decided on 14.01.2013.
4) In view of this recent judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission, remedy is available to the complainant to approach the appellate authority u/s 19 of the Right to Information Act and complaint before the District Forum is not maintainable. In another recent judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.3636 of 2012 dated 25th February, 2013 in the case of B.Vasudeva Shetty –Versus- The Chief Manager, The Kota Co-operative Agricultural Bank Limited, the Hon’ble National Commission laid down as under –
14. 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 present consumer complaint does not lie under the Act.
5) Thus, in view of the recent judgments of the Hon’ble National Commission remedy is available to the complainant under the Right to Information Act and the complaint before this Forum is not maintainable. Therefore, the preliminary objection taken by the O.P.No.3 is allowed and the complaint stands dismissed. Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced dated 11th February, 2014
