…….Complainant.
Versus
Mr. Rahul Dhankhar Public Information Officer and Legal Officer Bhagat Phool Singh Government Medical College, Gohana Road, Khanpur Kala, Tehsil Khanpur Kalan and District Sonepat, Haryana-131305 Mobile/Whatsapp no.9215161540.
…..Opposite Party.
Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Before Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.
Sh.Vineet Kaushik ………..Member
Present: Shri Yogender Kumar Mehla, counsel for the complainant.
(Jaswant Singh President)
ORDER:
Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered.
The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant sent an application to OP, under section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, information in public interest was demanded. Alongwith the said application, complainant also send a partial fee of Rs.100/- through Indian Postal Order no.55H 052530 for certified copies of public documents. After receipt of the said application and payment of fee, OP is liable to sent the documents/ copies in the said application but no compliance was done by the OP and no reply was given within the stipulated time limit. Being aggrieved to the act of the OP, a legal notice was sent to the OP on 18.01.2023. Even after receipt of said legal notice OP neither supplied the copies of the public documents mentioned abovesaid application nor any reply was given. The complainant was aware that the public documents sought in the above Indian Evidence Act, application are related to public interest. After providing the documents mentioned in the above application, a major fraud will be disclosed by the complainant. Therefore, public documents were not made available to the complainant deliberately by the OP with the intention of giving benefit to himself and others. By making partial payment of fees for the certified copies of public documents required by the complainant to the OP in the said application, complainant comes under the definition of consumer. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.
2. Arguments on the point of admissibility heard.
3. Complainant has sought for the following information from the OP Under section 76 of Evidence Act, 1972 which reproduced as under:-
1. Attested photocopies of the attendance register of all the employees including all the doctors working in the Department of Anesthesia from 01 October, 2016 to 31 October 2016.
2. Attested copies of attendance register and duty roaster register of the entire staff including doctors, nursing staff of all departments working in Operation Theatre ()T) from 26.10.2016 to 31.10.2016.
Section 76 in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which reproduced as under:-
“Certified copies of public documents.—Every 1public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.—Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefore, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies." Explanation.—Any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty, is authorized to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section”.
5. It is to the OP, being Public Information Officer and Legal Officer as alleged by the complainant to decide, whether as per law, the sought information can be supplied or not. If the OP did not supply the sought information, complainant could have filed an appeal/revision/complaint before the competent court/authority of law. Hence, the present complaint is not maintainable before the Commission and same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
Dated: 02.03.2023
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Karnal.
(Vineet Kaushik)
Member
