Orissa

Malkangiri

CC/187/2014

Kunal Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Public Information Officer, - Opp.Party(s)

30 Mar 2015

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/187/2014
( Date of Filing : 25 Nov 2014 )
 
1. Kunal Mishra
S/O Late Tarini Mishra At/PO : Mathili, Dist : Malkangiri.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Public Information Officer,
Ofice of the B.E.O,Mathili Dist : Malkangiri.
2. Head Master, UGME School
Dhungiaput, Mathili,Dist: Malkangiri
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Ashok Kumar Pattnaik PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Bhavani Acharya MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 30 Mar 2015
Final Order / Judgement

 

1.  This complaint was filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 praying to punish the opposite parties as per the provisions of Right to Information Act and to direct the opposite parties to provide the required information. 

2.          Till now this Forum has been registering the matters in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission rendered in the matter of  Dr.S.P.Thirumala Rao Vs. Municipal Corporation, Mysore (RP 1975/2005) rendered on 28-05-2009.  In the said decision, the Hon’ble National Commission held that notwithstanding the fact that the persons aggrieved on account of refusal of information sought under R.T.I. Act can approach the Consumer Fora  for compensation notwithstanding the fact that they have statutory appeal before the Commissioner under R.T.I. Act.

3.         However, in a subsequent decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission on 08.01.2015 in  the matter of Sanjay Kumar Mishra & Others –versus-Public Information Officer (PIO) & Ors (R.P.Nos 2028,3146 of 2012 & 362,2806 of 2013), reported in 2015 CPR 171 (NC  after referring to the decision in Dr.S.P.Thirumala Rao’s case, held that in the light of the fact that the aggrieved parties who fail to secure information under R.T.I. Act have effective remedy before the Appellate Authority under R.T.I. Act, they can not be treated as a  “ consumer “ and as such the Consumer Protection Act can not come to their rescue either to obtain information which they could not secure. 

In the result, we  hold that the present complaint is not maintainable in this Forum. However, the Complainant is at liberty to  seek redressal as per the sections 19 & 20 of RTI Act, 2005  for which he would be entiteled to the beneffit of the time consumed in this proceeding for remission agaianst counting the period of limitation, in keeping with liberty allowed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Laxmi Engineering works –Versus-P.S.G Industrial Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583.

Copy of order be made available to the parties free of cost.

Delivered in open forum on this 30th March,2015

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Ashok Kumar Pattnaik]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Bhavani Acharya]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.