BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 57 of 2014.
Date of Institution: 26.02.2014.
Date of Decision: 28.01.2016.
Suresh Kumar son of Narsingh Dass, resident of village Khariyabas, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani.
……..Complainant.
Versus.
- Lila Ram, Sarpanch Gram Panchayat Khariabas, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani.
- Jagbir, Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Khariabas, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani.
- Satpal B.D.P.O. Kairu.
- Director Development & Panchayat Officer, Haryana Government, Chandigarh.
…….Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present: Sh. Naresh Sihag, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Surat Singh, Advocate for Ops no. 1 to 3.
None for OP no. 4.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The grievance of the complainant is that he had applied for seeking some information from the opposite parties vide application dated 11.10.2013 and had also attached postal orders as application fee and the application was sent to the opposite parties but they have failed to supply the information. The complainant alleged that he had preferred an appeal but the required information was not supplied to him. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conducts of opposite parties he had to suffer mental harassment, physical harassment and financial loss, due to non supply to the information and has sought compensation by way of the present complaint.
2. Opposite Party No.1 on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the answering opposite party has no concern whatsoever the information sought by the complainant and as such he has been wrongly and illegally impleaded as party. It is submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant is vague and baseless. However, it is submitted that all the information sought under the RTI Act was given the complainant. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party and complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with costs.
3. Opposite Parties No. 2 to 4 on appearance also filed separate written statement and has taken the same version as alleged by opposite party No.1, so there is no need for its repetition. Hence, it is prayed that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-10 along with supporting affidavit.
5. In reply thereto, the opposite parties has placed on record Annexure R-1 & Annexure R-2.
6. We have heard the counsels for the parties.
7. Without going into merits of the case we dispose of this complaint on the law point. The Hon’ble National Commission in case Sanjay Kumar Mishra Versus Vs. Public Information Officer (PIO) & others, 2015(1) CLT 259(NC) held:
“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 Fora 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 service rendered by the CPIO/PIO is maintainable before a Consumer Forum”.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, as mentioned above, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 28.01.2016.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi) (Balraj Singh)
Member. Member.
