This is a case U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer for an

Order directing the O.P. (custodian of the information) to supply information as sought on 06.04.2014, to pay compensation for Rs.50,000/-, Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost and other reliefs to the complainant.

The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant being an ex-secretary of the Subhas Chandra Girls’ High School asked for certain information from the O.P. No.1 under the provision of RTI Act, 2005 and as the information was not supplied by the O.Ps. as per the Act., the present complaint has been filed. The complainant stated that he applied for the information on payment of required fees, so in this sense, he is a consumer and the O.Ps. are the service provider and by not providing service, as sought for, the O.Ps. are guilty of deficiency in service. So, the complainant filed this case.

Both the O.Ps. have contested the complaint by filing a joint written version. Their specific case is that the present complaint is not maintainable because though the O.P. No.1 is not the competent authority to supply the information as sought by the complainant but after receiving the application from the complainant on 06.04.2014, the O.P. No.1 then and there sent the same to APIO/SPIO who is competent authority to supply the information and accordingly he communicated this massage to the complainant by letter dated 30.04.2014 and thereafter on 04.06.2014 by issuing another letter the O.P. No.1 informed that as per order of the competent authority they not provided such information to the complainant as he wants. The O.P. No.1 also stated that the complainant instead of preferring an appeal against the action of SPIO, the complainant has come before this Forum which is not competent to entertain such complaint. So, the O.Ps. pray for dismissal of the petition of the complainant with cost.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

To establish the case, the complainant has relied upon an affidavit-in-chief sworn by him and relied upon some photocopies of documents filed in this case which have not been challenged by the O.Ps. by adducing any evidence.

We carefully peruse the contents of the petition of complaint, W.V., documentary evidences on record and consider the arguments advanced by the Ld. Lawyers for both the parties.

It is admitted that the complainant being the Secretary of Subhasganj Girls’ High School had issued several cheques on 29.03.2012 and as an Ex-Secretary he applied with a prayer along with proper fee for seeking some information about the matter of the above cheques before the O.P. No.1. But instead of supplying the same, the O.P. No.1 by issuing a letter dated 30.04.2014 informed the complainant that they already sent his application to the APIO/SPIO, who is the competent authority for supplying the same and finally on 04.06.2014 by sending another letter informed that as per order of the competent authority he could not provide such information as the complainant demanded. Record shows that after refusal for furnishing information the complainant did not file any appeal before the competent authority as per Sec.-19(1) of the RTI Act but he has filed this complaint for seeking reliefs before this Forum.

Now, question arises whether this Forum can provide the reliefs as prayed to the complainant. We see one observation of the Hon’ble National Commission made in the Public Information Officer Urban Improvement Trust Ajmer VS Tarun Agarwal reported in [2014] CJ 496 (N.C.), where the judgment under discussion was given in the above noted case under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Acts itself confers a provision Sec.-23 of the RTI Act that “No Court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made this Act, and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act”. In the above noted case, the Hon’ble National Commission clearly mentioned in para No.10 that any Forum as well as the Commission is certainly not armed with the powers under the RTI Act. It cannot arrogate the powers which do not rest with it. We are supposed to exercise our powers within the parameters of Law. So, in view of the above discussion, we cannot provide any additional or alternative remedies as prayed by the complainant in this case. Accordingly the case of the complainant fails.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the complaint case No.CC-63/2014 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps. without cost.

Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.