The gist of the present complaint is that the complainant of this case asked for certain information from the opposite parties under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005 and as the information was not supplied within the stipulated period provided by the Act; the present complaint has been filed. As per the complaint the complainant particularly opposite party No.2 was asked for supply of the information like the strength of staff in the District Museum, the date of the publication of the recruitment of the staff in the newspaper and the number of posts reserved as per the Government norms. But opposite party No.2 did not provide any information regretting his inability as the matter-in-question was within the ambit of District Magistrate, Uttar Dinajur, who was the appointing authority. Thereafter, the complainant approached the State Public Information Officer, for short SPIO. But after laps of 30 days no information was supplied, no communication what so ever was received from the end of SPIO. The complainant claimed, he applied for the information on payment of required fees. So, in this sense, he is a consumer and the SPIO is the service provider and by not providing service, as sought for, the SPIO is guilty of deficient in service. So, this complaint has been filed for a direction to the opposite party No.1 to supply the information as sought for, to pay the cost of `50,000/- for mental agony, `20,000/- for delay and `2,000/- as litigation cost.

Both the opposite parties contested the complaint by filing a joint written version. Their case is that the present complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has remedy to prefer an appeal if the information was not supplied by the SPIO within the stipulated period. It is contended further that opposite party No.1 sent the prayer of the applicant to Member Secretary, District Museum, Uttar Dinajpur. The Member Secretary on receipt of the said requisition informed that the District Magistrate, Uttar Dinajpur is the appointing authority and as such he is unable to furnish any information as record was not available with him.  But the complainant instead of preferring an appeal against the action of SPIO, the complainant has come before this Forum which is not competent to entertain such complaint. So, their final prayer is the case be dismissed with cost.

Decisions with reasons      

          The complainant relied upon certain documents which are marked Annexure A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5.

          We get it admitted that the complainant sought for certain information from the opposite party No.1, who in turn replied expressing his inability to furnish the information as the subject matter involved with the District Collector, Uttar Dinajpur, who had control over the matter. Further, we do find there is a trend of shifting the responsibility to the shoulder of the same person that is the opposite party No.1 by the opposite party No.2. The action taken by both opposite parties shows they are much reluctant to appreciate the matter involved suggesting to prefer appeal for their failure to furnish the information which were within their domain.

          Here we think it is pertinent to note that we are not concerned with the matters the information was sought for from the opposite parties. We are only concerned, whether the act on the part of the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 can invite any action by this Forum. There was an unreported decision of National Commission decided on 01.10.2005 between Dr. S. P. Thirumala Rao versus Municipal Commission, Mysore City Municipal Corporation. The judgment under discussion was given in a case under Karnataka Information Act. The Act itself confers a provision that Civil Court will not have jurisdiction to entertain any order passed under KRTI Act. Here, in Sec. 23 of RTI Act will find the same provisions. Now, Ld. National Commission has taken such provision into consideration and taken the view that RTI Act does not bar the jurisdiction of District Forum. Since, only jurisdiction of the court has been barred. So, the matter pertaining to the deficiency in service can be maintained. The remedy, which the party availed of, is an additional remedy. Ld. National Commission, while viewing the above relied on two Supreme Court cases [{III (1996) CPJ 1 (SC)} {AIR 2000 SC 2008}]. In the above two cases it was held by Honorable Supreme Court that despite the existence of an arbitration clause, the complainant by a consumer under CP Act, 1986 was tenable since remedy provided under CP Act is an addition to the provision of law for the time being in force.

Information sought for under RTI Act is to be supplied within 30 days from the date of receipt of application. Information may be either in negative or positive in nature against the information. But, without furnishing any answer within 30 days will amount to the refusal. Complainant’s case is that he did not receive any answer either in form of ‘NO’ or ‘YES’ from the concerned authority. There may be provision to take the concerned authority into task in various form by the superior authority but no remedy is provided to the information seeker, whose application was not disposed within time. So, the additional remedy provided by CP Act, 1986 in alleged deficiency in service may be chosen by the information seeker. The complainant had paid requisite fees for seeking information, but the information, he sought was not supplied with – an act, which amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant is thus a consumer vis-à-vis information sought on payment under the said Act (RTI). So, in our view the present complaint is maintainable in law as well as in fact and this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. We are also of the view that the complainant is a consumer as contemplated under C. P. Act, 1986 and he is a victim of deficiency in service in the hand of the opposite party No.1.

So, it is wrong to say that once the complainant has availed the remedy against which appeal is provided, he would not maintain a complaint under C.P. Act. The complainant in our case has not even availed the provision of appeal. So, it is wrong to say that once the complainant even availed the remedy against which appeal is provided, he would not maintain a complaint under C. P. Act.

 For the above reason we hold that the complainant has been able to establish his case and we think an order of token compensation of `500.00 (rupees five hundred only) and litigation cost of `100.00 (rupees one hundred only) be passed against the opposite parties, which is just and fair.

Fees paid are correct.

Hence, it is ordered : -

That the consumer complaint number 28/2010 is allowed on contest with cost of `100.00 (rupees one hundred only) against opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 is directed to pay `500.00 (rupees five hundred only) as compensation to the complainant.

The litigation cost and the compensation be paid within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant can moved this Forum for execution of the order.

Furnish the true photocopies of this Final Order to the parties free of cost.