Haryana

Ambala

CC/196/2013

RAJ KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SANATAN DHARAM COLLEGE - Opp.Party(s)

BINDU JAIN

19 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

            Complaint Case No.    : 196 of 2013

Date of Institution       : 06.08.2013

            Date of Decision         : 19.05.2017

 

Raj Kumar aged 61 years S/o Late Sh. Shankar Lal, 166, Gandhi Market, Ambala Cantt.      

                                                                                               

                                                                        ……Complainant.

Versus

Sanatan Dharma College (Lohare)through its Principal, Ambala Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt.

                                                                                    ……Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 -14 of the Consumer Protection Act

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                       

Present:          Mrs. Bindu Jain, counsel for complainant.

                        Sh. Nitish Sawhney, counsel for OP.

 

JUDGMENT.

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has sought for the information during the period 31.07.2012 to 08.10.2012 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the OP but the OP with the mala-fide intentions & ulterior motives acted illegally to avoid giving proper information to the complainant and over charged the complainant. Resultantly, the complainant could not secure the complete information for want of his economic condition. Needless to state that the OP is a well educated person and imparts education to the children. It was not expected of the OP to refuse/deny/prevent the giving of information by demanding excess charges as against the aforesaid rule 5 framed under the Haryana right to Information Rules, 2009 which came into force on 01.01.2010. Further submitted that the complainant suffered embarrassment, harassment, humiliation, mental pain & agony for not providing the information for which the complainant was lawfully entitled under the Act (supra) and the OP is guilty of rendering deficient services qua complainant and tried to defeat the beneficial legislation of the RTI Act.  

2.                     Upon notice, OP tendered reply and submitting that the complainant has published the defamating news in news paper Din Pridin against the OP on 14,15,16,17,22 and 22 Feb 2005 and when the matter was taken up with press council of India the complainant apologized publically in the college staff council and also published regret in the News Paper and due to this reason, the present case is the counter blast for the above mentioned facts. Further submitted that as per Section 23 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 “No Court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceedings in respect of any other made under this act. Further submitted that as per Section 21 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 “No suit/prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any person for any things which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this act or any rule made there under.

3.                     To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure C-X alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-22 and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for OP tendered affidavit Annexure R-1 alongwith documents as Annexures R-2 to R-12 and closed the evidence.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully. At the very outset, the first and foremost question arises before us for consideration is “Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint or not?.

                        Counsel for OP has vehemently argued that this Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain and hear the present complaint.  In support of his case, Counsel for OP has relied upon judgment delivered by Hon’ble National Commission in Higher Bench in case title Sanjay Kumar Mishra Vs. Public Information Officer (PIO ) & ors including other revision petition mentioned in the judgment. The observation made in the main case title  Sanjay Kumar Mishra Vs. Public Information Officer (PIO ) & ors case (supra) is as under:-

“The matter had been taken for hearing on 18.02.2014, before a two-Members Bench of this Commission, it was noted that in revision petitions No.4061/2010, 3276/2012, 588 and 589 of 2009, this Commission had held that a consumer complaint was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 22 and 23 of the RTI Act; whereas a contrary view had been taken by this Commission in RP/1975/2006 Dr.S.P. Thriumala Rao Vs. Mysore city Municipal Corporation, holding that remedy in the consumer Protection Act was an additional remedy available to a consumer. Nothing the aforesaid conflict in the view taken by this Commission, a larger Bench was constituted so that the issue could be finally settled. We have accordingly heard the learned counsel and the parties appearing before us, in the light of the provisions contained in the RTI Act and the Consumer Protection Act”.  

                        The above said matter has been considered by Hon’ble National Commission in Higher Bench is held that:-

(a)       “RTI –Held- The jurisdiction of the Consumer For a to intervene in the matter arising out of the provisions of the RTI Act is barred by necessary implication as also under the provisions of Section 23 of the Said Act.

(b)       RTI-Held- the redressal mechanism provided under the RTI Act con not be said to be in any manner less efficacious then the remedy available before a consumer Forum.

(C)      RTI-Held- Consumer Fora are “Courts” for the purpose of Section 23 of the RTI Act.

(d)       RTI-Held- It cannot be disputed that the information under RTI Act is supplied for consideration”.

            The Hob’ble National Commission further held that in para Nos. 23, 24 and 25 “Considering the legislative intent behind providing a special mechanism for enforcement of the rights conferred by RTI Act, we are of the view that the consumer fora are Courts for the purpose of Section 23 of the RTI Act. Any other interpretation will open two parallel machineries, for enforcement of the same rights created by a special statue, which could not have been the legislative intent, particularly when RTI Act is a special law vis-à-vis Consumer Protection act. The ambit of RTI Act is confined to one service i.e. supply of information, whereas the Consumer Protection Act deals with deficiencies in a wide variety of services rendered for consideration.

            The purpose behind ousting the jurisdiction of the civil Court is to exclude invocation of a redressal mechanism other than that provided under the special Act. The aforesaid object is bound to be frustrated if, while ousting the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum which is not a redressal mechanism provided under the Special Act is allowed.

            For the reasons stated hereinabove, we hold that (i) the person seeking information under the provisions of RTI Act cannot be said to be a consumer vis-à-vis the public authority concerned or CPIO/PIO nominated by it and (ii) the jurisdiction of the Consumer For a to intervene in the matters arising out of the provisions of the RTI Act is barred by necessary implication as also under the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act. Consequently no complaint by a person alleging deficiency in the services rendered by the CPIO/PIO is maintainable before a consumer Forum. The Revision petition No.2028 of 2012 and Revision Petition No.362 of 2013 are, therefore, allowed and the complaints subject matter of the said revision petitions are dismissed. Consumer complaint No.66 of 2014 is also hereby dismissed. Revision Petition NO.3146 of 2012, Revision Petition No.2806 of 2012 and First Appeal No.275 of 2012 are dismissed”.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for complainant had not rebutted the above said arguments and not placed any contrary judgment.

6.                     Therefore, in light of judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in Full Bench, in case title as Sanjay Kumar Mishra Vs. Public Information Officer (PIO ) & ors (supra), we hold that this Forum have no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint, thus we have no option except to dismiss the same. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, complainant is at liberty to file his complaint before the competent Court of law having jurisdiction, if so, advised provided the complainant may approach to the Court of competent jurisdiction within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.  The period during which the present complaint remained pending before this Forum is exempted for the purpose of limitation in terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC Pg.583. The complainant can obtain all the original documents, if any, relied upon in this case and Assistant is also directed to handover the same, if any attached with the complaint after retaining photocopy of the same on the file. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, as per rules. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

ANNOUNCED ON:  19.05.2017                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                                        (D.N. ARORA)

                                  PRESIDENT               

 

                                                                                                         Sd/-

                      (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                                 MEMBER

                                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                                (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                                                   MEMBER