The case of the complainant is that he appeared for an interview for the post of Night Guard before the selection committee held at District Museum, Karnajora, Uttar Dinajpur on 31.01.2010. He has down in the interview but the authority has not published any panel of successful candidate. Complainant finally could learn that he has not selected for the post. Thereafter the complainant moved State Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata. But the Honorable Tribunal is asking an authentic document regarding publication of panel. But actually no panel was published. So, complainant filed one petition may this year before the Public Information Officer, Uttar Dinajpur, seeking an information whether panel was published of the interview held on 31.01.2010; so, this case.

The opposite party No.1 on the 1st date of his appearance was represented by the Ld. Govt. Pleader, Utter Dinajpur. But subsequently he abandoned the case. So, the case was fixed for ex-parte hearing and the hearing was completed on 27.01.2011 and necessary order is being passed today.  

Decisions with reasons

This case is for a violation of the provision of the RTI Act. The complainant has sought certain information from the opposite party No.1. A Xerox copy of the letter addressed to the complainant by the opposite party No.1 supported the fact that the complainant has sought for an information from him, who subsequently transfer the matter to the Member Secretary, Uttar Dinajpur District Museum on 01.06.2010. The Member Secretary thereafter wrote a letter to the opposite party No.1 on 30.06.2010 stating that he is not concerned with the panel in question or examination for the post of Night Watchman held on 31.01.2010 at extension training centre, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur. So, we get from the above that finally the complainant did not get any information.

Ld. Lawyer for the complainant led his entire argument banking on a decision of National Commission decided on 01.10.2005 in between Dr. S. P. Thirumala Rao versus Municipal Commission, Misore City Municipal Corporation. The judgment under discussion was given in a case under Karnataka Information Act. The Act itself confers a provision that Civil Court will not have jurisdiction to entertain any order passed KRTI Act. Mere, in Sec.23 of RTI Act will find the same provisions. Now, Ld. National Commission has taken such provision into consideration and taken the view that RTI Act does not bar the jurisdiction of District Forum. Since, only jurisdiction of the court has been barred. So, the matter pertaining to the deficiency in service can be maintained. The remedy, which the party availed of, is an additional remedy. Ld. National Commission, while viewing the above relied on two Supreme Court cases III (1996) CPJ I (SC) AIR 2000 SC 2008. In the above two cases it was held by Honorable Supreme Court that despite the existence of an arbitration clause, the complainant by a consumer under C.P. Act , 1986 was tenable since remedy provided under C.P. Act is an addition to the provision of law for the time being in force.

Information sought for under RTI Act is to be supplied within 30 days from the date of receipt of application. Information may be either in negative or positive in nature against the information. But, without furnishing any answer within 30 days will amount to the refusal. Complainant’s case is that he did not receive any answer either in form of ‘NO’ or ‘YES’ from the concerned authority. There may be provision to take the concerned authority into task in various from by the superior authority but no remedy is provided to the information seeker, whose application was not disposed within time. So, the additional remedy provided by C. P. Act, 1986 in alleged deficiency in service may be chosen by the information seeker. The complainant had paid requisite fees for seeking information, but the information, he sought was not supplied with an act, which amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant is thus a consumer vis-à-vis information sought on payment under the said Act (RTI). So, in our view the present complainant is maintainable in law as well as in fact and this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. We are also of the view that the complainant is a consumer as contemplated under C.P. Act, 1986 and he is a victim of deficiency in service in the hand of the opposite party No.1.

So, it is wrong to say that once the complainant has availed the remedy against which appeal is provided, he would not maintain a complaint under C.P. Act.

For the above reason we hold that complainant has been able to establish his case and we think an order of token compensation of `500.00 (rupees five hundred only) and litigation cost of `100.00 (rupees one hundred only) be passed against the opposite party, which is just and fair.

Fees paid are correct.

Hence, it is ordered : -

That the complaint is allowed ex-parte with cost of `100/- (rupees one hundred only) against opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 is directed to pay `500/- (rupees five hundred only) as compensation to the complainant.

The litigation cost and the compensation be paid within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant can moved this Forum for execution of this order.

Furnish the true photocopies of this final order to the complainant free of cost and send same copy to the opposite parties through by hand or Registered post with acknowledgement card.