For the  Complainant :Self

 For the O.Ps : Sri.J.P.Sunani  ,Advocate.

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K.Patra,President

1. The complainant is remaining absent consistently on the date fix for hearing. However in view of provision contended u/s 38(3) (c ) of C.P Act 2019 we have taken up  this complaint to decide on merit considering the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the OP present ..
2. The facts of the complaint in brief is that,   Complainant has sought for certain information under RTI Act  from  the PIO of the office of the Tahasildar Junagarh but no avail for which he has filed 1^St appeal before the Tahasildar ,Junagarh namely Sj. Upendra Luha but  the Opposite Parties  did not respond to  supply the   required information within the stipulated period of time for which  the complainant  presumed  malpractices by the Opposite Party. The  Opposite Party has not yet taken any action to supply the information caused irreparable loss to the complainant . Hence, this complaint alleging malpractices & deficiency of service on the part of Ops.
3. The complainant seeks for an order directing the Ops to pay Rs 2,00,000/- towards damage cost, Rs 50,000/- as Compensation towards mental agony and Rs 10,000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant.
4. On being notice, the Opposite Parties appeared filed their  written version containing there in that ,the complainant is a journalist and that ,due to personal guars with this Op,he has  filed five numbers of Consumer Complaint vide C.C NO. 14/19, 15/19, 23/19 & 25/19 against the OP before this Honurable Forum/Commission based on falsehood & concocted story. It is further submitted that ,the complainant hah neither  filed any application under RTI Act before the PIO nor has filed any appeal before the Tahasildar ,Junagarh as such there is no cause of action to filed this complainant .Rather this complainant is is contrary to law and not maintainable in the eye of law be dismissed with cost .
5. Section 38(6) of C.P.Act,2019 cast an obligation on the District Commission to decide a complaint on the basis of evidence brought into notice by the complainant and the service provide/seller , irrespective of whether the service provider/seller adduced evidence or not. The decision of the District Commission   has to be based on the evidence relied upon by the complainant. The onus thus is on the complainant making allegation.
6. Here in this case though sufficient opportunities has been  availed for hearing and to adduce their evidence on affidavit as prescribed under Section 38 (6) of C.P.Act 2019  to substantiate their respective claim but neither the complainant nor the Op has lead their evidence on affidavit as prescribed. Even the complaint averment is not supported by any affidavit of the complainant to be considered as evidence. Law is well settled that, the complainant is to prove the allegation made against the Ops. 
7. However, in view of section 38(3) (c ) of C.P Act 2019 , perused the material available on records . We have given our thoughtful consideration upon the contention of both parties gathered from the respective pleading and documents placed on the record. 
8. Before discussing other facts and issues we feel it proper to decide the case on the point of maintainability of this complaint. The complainant has sought for certain information under RTI Act and due to non supply of information by the Opposite Party only, the complaint has presented this complaint before this Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and pray for  an award of compensation towards mental agony & litigation cost .
9. The Consumer Protection Act 1986 as well as new C. P .Act 2019 is in addition but not in derogation of any other law, if the request under the RTI Act is not accepted by the Opposite Party after depositing  required fee for obtaining information,  the complainant could have preferred an appeal before the 1^st Appellate Authority and then 2^nd Appellate Authority as prescribed there under  the RTI Act but there is no such evidence placed on the record that , the complainant  has deposited the required fee for obtaining  information  from the Opposite Party and that ,  the complainant could have preferred any  appeal before the Appellate authority as prescribed .  As such this complaint is not maintainable in the eye of law. Reliance may placed on  the Judgment passed by the Honourable State Commission ,Odisha on dt . 23.03.2021 in Tahasildar ,Junagarh vrs Ramanuj Meher ( First Appeal  No. A/430/2018) placed on record as per memo of citation filed by the learned counsel for the OP.
10. Further we  may relied  upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Sanjay Kumar Mishra Vr.Public Information Office dt.08.01.2015 in Revision Petition 3146/2012 where  it is held that (i) the person seeking information under the provisions of RTI Act cannot be said to be a consumer vis-vis the Public Authority concerned or CPIO/PIO nominated by it and (ii) the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora/Commission 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.
11. In view of the aforesaid finding and judgment of the higher Forums  we are of the opinion that, this complaint petition is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and hence dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Application pending if any is disposed of accordingly .

Dictated and corrected by me.

        President

I agree

                   Member        

Pronounced in open Commission today on this 22^nd  day of June 2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be supplied  to the parties free of cost and the judgment  be uploaded forthwith in the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties or the parties may download the order from the website of this Commission/Confonet be treated as copy served to the parties. Ordered accordingly .