COMPLAINTS FILED ON: 16.02.2012
DISPOSED ON: 24.03.2012.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
24th DAY OF MARCH-2012
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT Nos. 347 & 352/2012
Complaintno. 347/2012 Complainant | Sri. B. Suresh, Post Box No. 10026, Electronic City Post, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore – 560 100. |
| V/s |
OPPOSITE PARTY/S | Public Information Officer, BBMP, Joint Commissioner Office, Mahadevapura Division, Bangalore – 48. |
Complaintno. 352/2012 Complainant | Sri. B. Suresh, Post Box No. 10026, Electronic City Post, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore – 560 100. V/s |
OPPOSITE PARTY/S | Public Information Officer, Director Office, Physical Handicap & Senior Citizens Development Office, V.V. Tower, Bangalore – 01. |
COMMON ORDER
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
Both these complaints U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 are filed by the same complainant seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps) to furnish the information required and to pay compensation Rs.10,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service.
2. The earlier two similar complaints filed in complaint No.226/12 & 227/12 are dismissed as not maintainable as per order dated 15.03.2012.
3. In complaint No.347/2012 the grievances of the complainant is that he has filed application before the OP Under Section-6(1)(3) of RTI Act seeking certain information relating to sewerage and sanitary works to be started and the required fees to be paid for that work by the owners of that area. OP has not furnished the required information within 30 days from 10.01.2012. Hence the complaint.
4. In complaint No.352/2012 the grievances of the complainant is that certain matter has been published in “Udayavani” daily on 26.12.2011 and copy of the same has been furnished along with RTI application filed Under Section 6(1)(3) of RTI Act seeking certain information, as to the budget amount released from the Central Government, the details of the projects and the amount allotted to each project, further to furnish information as to the funds released by the State Government and the hurdles in utilizing the funds released. OP has not furnished the required information within 30 days from 29.12.2011. Hence the complaint.
5. With regard to the maintainability of the complaints, we are of the view that both these complaints are not maintainable for the reasons stated below:
R E A S O N S
6. In both these complaints, the complainant is relying on the principles laid down in Revision Petition No.1975/2005 by the Hon’ble National Commission in support of the contention that the complaints are maintainable. In our view, in Revision Petition No.4061/2010 T. Pundalika V/s Revenue Department (Service Division) Government of Karnataka the Hon’ble National Commission confirmed the Order of the Hon’ble State Commission holding that there is a remedy available to approach the Appellate Authority Under Section-19 of the RTI Act-2005 and the Revision Petition was dismissed. The Hon’ble State Commission observed as under.
‘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’.
In the above case also the complainant filed application Under RTI Act to furnish information and OP4 failed to provide information. The complaint was filed before District Forum which was allowed directing the OP4 to furnish the required information. OP being aggrieved by the said Order preferred Appeal before the State Commission. The Hon’ble State Commission allowed the Appeal by observing that the complainant can approach the Appellate Authority Under Section-19 of the RTI Act and the said order has been confirmed by the Hon’ble National Commission. The principles laid down in Dr.S.P. Thirumala Rao V/s Municipal Commission Mysore, R.P.No.1975/2005 was relied in the above case and the same was not accepted by the Hon’ble National Commission. In view of the subsequent order of the Hon’ble National Commission holding that the complaints are not maintainable under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, when there is a remedy available in RTI Act to approach the Appellate Authority, the same is to be followed by this Forum.
7. In Revision Petition No.1250/2010 S.N. Subramanya V/s Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar Palika, the Hon’ble National Commission held that RTI Act is a complete Code in itself and provides for an elaborate mechanism of appeal if an applicant under the Act is denied the information to which he is rightfully entitled under the provisions of the Act. The proper course for the petitioner was thus to approach the prescribed Appellate Authority against the alleged action of the respondent Mahanagar Palika.
8. In view of the principles laid down in the above two Revision Petitions, we are of the view that the complaints are not maintainable, the complainant is at liberty to approach prescribed Appellate Authority Under Section-19 of the RTI Act. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
Both these complaints dismissed as not maintainable.
This original order shall be kept in the file of the complaint No. 347/2012 and a copy of it shall be placed in complaint No. 352/2012.
Send the copy of this order to the complainant free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 24th day of MARCH– 2012.)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Png.
