Orissa

Ganjam

CC/45/2015

Dr. Laxmi Narayan Dash - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.K. Behera, Head Clerk - Opp.Party(s)

Dr. Laxmi Narayan Das, Advocate

23 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GANJAM,
BERHAMPUR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/45/2015
 
1. Dr. Laxmi Narayan Dash
S/o. Sri Chandra Sekhar Dash, Boarding Street, Bijipur, Berhampur
Ganjam
Odisha
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. R.K. Behera, Head Clerk
Public Information Officer, Office of the Sub-Registar, At/P.O. P.S. Seragada
Ganjam
Odisha
2. K. Dillswar Rao, Junior Clerk
Public Information Officer, Office of the Sub-Registar, At/P.O. Kukudakhandi
Ganjam
Odisha
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MS. Soubhagyalaxmi Pattnaik PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. N. Tuna Sahu MEMBER
 HON'BLE MS. Alaka Mishra MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Dr. Laxmi Narayan Das, Advocate, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Dillip Kumar Patra, Addl. Govt. pleader., Advocate
Dated : 23 Sep 2016
Final Order / Judgement

DATE OF FILING: 3.12.2015.

          DAE OF DISPOSAL: 23.9.2016.

 

 

Miss S.L.Pattnaik, President:

 

            The complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (for short, the O.Ps) and redressal of his grievance before this Forum.

            2. The case is posted today for hearing on the maintainability petition. Learned counsels for both parties are present. We heard the maintainability petition today. We heard both the petition and objection petition filed by the complainant and O.Ps on the maintainability ground. The complainant has filed this case for compensation for not being granted some information in connection with the R.T.I. Act, 2005 with an investment of Rs.33/-.

            3. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that on dated 08.01.2015 and 27.01.2015 he filed an application under R.T.I. Act some information relating to function of the Sub Registrar, Sheragada and office of the Sub- Registrar, Kukudakhanadi, District Ganjam for supply of information as required. After receipt of the RTI application of the complainant the O.P.No.1 advised to complainant vide in his office letter No. 27 dated 31.1.2015 for payment of Rs.12/-. Immediately the complainant deposited Rs.13/- only vide Money Order receipt on dated 6.2.2015. After receipt of the money the O.P.N o.1 failed to submit information on receipt of the money as per claim. On dated 27.1.2015 complainant asked O.P.No.2 regarding some information under RTI Act. After receipt of the RTI application the O.P.No.2 advised the complainant in his office letter No.24 dated 12.2.2015 for payment of Rs.6/-. The complainant being satisfied deposited Rs.7/- on dated 18.02.2015 and after receipt of the amount, O.P.No.2 failed to submit the information as alleged by the complainant.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay compensation of Rs.45,000/- by O.P.No.1 and RS.45,000/- by O.P.No.2 for harassment and mental agony.  

            4. Upon notice learned Additional Government Pleader filed petition  on behalf of the O.Ps and stated that  this case has been filed against the P.I.Os for redressal as per their petition but there is separate Forum to try this type of grievance if aggrieved by a concerned party as per Right to Information Act and his case is not at all coming under the provision of the Act and the petition is filed intentionally to kill the valuable time of this Hon’ble Forum and to harass the Government machineries which is liable to be rejected. 

            5. On dated 10.8.2016 the complainant filed an objection petition on the ground of maintainability filed by the O.P.  Perused the petition filed by the O.P. on dated 22.3.2016 and objection filed by the complainant on 10.08.2016 filed by the complainant.

            6. We heard both the petition and objection petition filed by the complainant and O.P. on maintainability ground. This complaint petition filed by the complainant is not maintainable in this Forum, since this matter is beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum and there is a separate grievance redressal system for R.T.I. application under the R.T.I. Act.  

            7.On the other hand, we relied on the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision petition No. 3146 of 2012, judgment pronounced on 8.1.2015 hold that the person seeking information under the provision of the R.T.I. Act cannot be said to be a consumer vis-à-vis the public authority concerned or CPIO/PIO nominated by it. The jurisdiction of the consumer for a to intervene in this matter arising out of the provision of the R.T.I. Act is barred by necessary implication as also under the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act. Hence, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed due to devoid of merits.

            In the light of the above decision of law we dismiss the case. No order as to cost and compensation. This case is disposed of accordingly.

            The order is pronounced on this day of 23rd September 2016 under the signature and seal of this Forum. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of cost.

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                   

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MS. Soubhagyalaxmi Pattnaik]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. N. Tuna Sahu]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MS. Alaka Mishra]
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.