Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara, President.
- Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
Dated,Bolangir the 18th day of November 2015.
C.C.No.68 Of 2014.
Akhila Das, age-65 years son of late Baishnab Charan Das.
Resident of Malpada, near Masjid Chowk, Bolangir Town,
P.O/P.S & Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.Sri Gunanidhi Das,P.I.O. Office of the Tahasildar,Bolangir.
At/P.O/P.S/Dist- Bolangir.
2.Tahasildar, Bolangir, At/P.O/P.S & Dist- Bolangir.
3.Rasmita Nag, Junior Clerk, Office of the Tahasildar,
Bolangir, At/P.O/P.S & Dist- Bolangir.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv.for the complainant- Sri R.N.Bohidar & Associates.
Adv.for the O.Ps 1 & 2 - None.
Adv.for the O.P.No.3 - Sri B.C.Pradhan & Associates.
Date of filing of the case- 19.09.2014
Date of order - 18.11.2015
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
Succinctly put, the complainant applied for information on dt.31.05.2014 under RTI Act.2005,in paid of consideration of Rs 10/- in shape of IPO to the P.I.O office of Tahasildar, Bolangir.
2. The complainant also submitted that the P.I.O according to his old habit intimated the concerned dealing clerk under memo No.1298/ 2.6.2014 to the applicant to supply the information within one month under RTI Act 2005.
3. Further stated after expiry statutory time limit, the P.I.O approached by letter dt.4.7.2014 to supply personally in compliance of u/s.7(6) of the act without any cost. The information neither supplied nor communicated with any status, thus the applicant in disappointment and mental agony lodged this case. Averred the P.I.O is a man of habitual negligence and malafidely deals others. Prayed the cost of application be refunded and supplied with the information along with compensation and cost.
4. In pursuant to notice, the O.Ps arrayed appeared and advanced as follows:-
5. The O.P.1 admitted the application has made and taken sincere steps in transfer to communicating to the complainant in deligent manner and repeated letter but as the record is not available, so the complete information is not supplied after sincere and best effort. Relied on letters copies, office notes and Orissa Information Commission decision dated 24.05.2013.
6. The O.P.2 in appearance filed a memo and did not prefer to file version on the disputed question of fact.
7. The O.P.3 appeared and lashed out in the version denying and contending the fact without any documentary evidence. Also submitting the complaint petition is not maintainable in the eye of law and same is liable to be rejected with cost.
8. Heard and perused the record at hand. On the out set we see no question is urged on the paid of consideration and thereby earning the status of a consumer.
9. The complainant raised three numbers of applications have been to the P.I.O in different times and the deficiency to be analogously adjudicated. But no photo copies have been enclosed in the complaint petition as relied with and so also no affidavit has been filed in affirm and substantiation of the fact in the question that shadowed with technical faults.
10. The next core questions raised is barred of limitation, cause of action and jurisdiction. Out of three numbers of applications made under RTI Act 2005 to the P.I.O only 2 nos of application survives the period of limitation similarly the cause of action in non giving the information in statutory time limit is correct and is tenable under the law. The last question on jurisdiction issue- we like to discuss decision that we relied with- “Sanjaya Kumar Mishra & others Vs Public Information Officer (PIO) others – 2015 (1) CPR 171 (NC), decided on 08.01.2015.
- Non-furnishing of information sought for- Person seeking information under RTI Act is required not only to pay fee prescribed in terms of section 6, but also cost of providing information- Mere use expression “fee” in place of price/charges, makes no difference since fee is also a form of price to be paid for obtaining desired information- It is immaterial that fee is prescribed by law and is not mutually agreed between applicant under RTI Act and CPIO/PIO concerned- So long as a consideration in form of fee/further fee is paid, information under RTI Act is supplied for consideration (para-11).
- Maintainability- RTI Act is complete code in itself which provides an adequate and effective remedy to person aggrieved from any decision/inaction/act/omission or misconduct of a CPIO/PIO- Not only does the act provide for two appeals, it also provides for a complain to Central information Commission or State Information Commission in a case CPIO/PIO- does not give his decision on application within prescribed time- if a person is still aggrieved, he can approach concerned High Court byway of a writ petition- To permit a consumer forum, to intervene while excluding intervention of a civil court, in the matter of enforcement of a right created by a special statute which also provides an effective remedy for enforcement of such a right, would result in defeating the very purpose behind providing a special mechanism for such enforcement and ousting jurisdiction of Civil Court- This could not have been legislative intent to permit a consumer forum to intervene while providing a special mechanism for enforcement of legal right conferred by the Act and ousting jurisdiction of Civil Court.-Jurisdiction of other forums in such matters is barred by necessary implication. If consumer Fora are held to be ‘Court’ for the purpose of section 23 of the RTI Act, its jurisdiction would be expressly barred, if complaint seeks to question an order passed under provisions of RTI Act (Para-20).
- Alternative Remedy- Invocation of- when a right is created by a Statute which also provides for an adequate and satisfactory alternative remedy for enforcement of said right, person seeking to enforce such a right must necessarily take recourse to redressal mechanism, provided in the Act by which said right is created and Civil Court cannot be approached for enforcement of such right-Jurisdiction of Civil Court is not excluded in a case where provisions of the Act are not complied or order is passed in contravention of fundamental, principles of judicial procedure. (Para-16).
- Person seeking information under provisions of RTI Act can not be said to be a consumer-Vis-à-vis Public Authority concerned or CPIO/PIO nominated by- Jurisdiction of consumer Fora to intervene in the matters arising out of provisions of RTI Act is barred by necessary implication as also under provisions of section 23 of the Act- No complaint by a person alleging deficiency in services rendered by CPIO/PIO is maintainable before Consumer Forum. (Para-25).
11. Under the aforesaid discussion, the complainant has relied on a decision- Dr. S.P. Thirumala Rao Vs Municipal Commissioner (Maysore City Municipal Corporation).NC- Revision No.75/2015- Held the complainant is, thus, a consumer Vis-à-vis information sought on payment under said Act. The decision passed under Karnataka Right to Information Act whereas we made reliance on Sanjay Kumar Mishra Vs PIO Cited supra is a concurrent findings of National Commission that over rides the former principle to the latter settled one, which is almost fit case to rely on.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and in our considered opinion “Jurisdiction of Consumer Fora to intervene in the matters arising out of provisions of RTI Act is barred by necessary implication”. Hence the case of the complainant is dismissed being barred of jurisdiction.
However, the O.P.2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only for not giving proper representation for the call of this Forum and same be paid to complainant as litigation expenses under section 14(1)(i) of C.P.Act within 30 days of this order, failing which interest @ 12% per annum will accrue till realization.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 18TH DAYOF NOVEMBER 2015.
(G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
