BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Thursday the 19th day of January, 2012
C.C.No.92/2011
Between:
N.Sunkanna,S/o N.Dubbanna, Agriculturist,
H.No.1-169/1, Gorantla Village,Kodumur Mandal - 518 484,Kurnool District.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. Sub Inspector of Police/Public Information Officer,Kodumur Police Station,
Behind H.No.1-114, Kodumur - 518 484,Kurnool District.
2. Circle Inspector of Police/Appellate Information Authority,Kodumur Police Station,
Behind H.No.1-114, Kodumur - 518 484, Kurnool District.
...Opposite ParTies
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of In person for complainant and Sri M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No.92/2011
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-
- To direct the opposite parties to furnish the required information to the complainant;
- To grant a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards mental agony;
- To grant the cost of the complaint;
- To grant any other reliefs as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant requested opposite party No.1 who is the Public Information Officer under R.T.I. Act, 2005 to furnish information pertaining to Crime Nos.17/2011 and 18/2011 of Kodumur Police Station. He paid Rs.10/- towards fee. Opposite party No.1 did not furnish the required Information. The complainant preferred an appeal to A.P. Information Commission, Hyderabad. There is no response from the Information Commission, Hyderabad. The required information is essential to the complainant. The complainant suffered with mental agony due to negligent attitude of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.1 filed written version and the same is adopted by opposite party No.2. It is stated in the written version of opposite party No.1 that the complaint is not maintainable. The information sought by the complainant is exempted from disclosure. The information sought by the complainant is already supplied to the complainant and the complainant acknowledged the same. The complainant filed this complaint with ulterior reasons. The accused in those Crime Numbers were not arrested as these case were referred and closed. Due to the said reasons the copies of the bail bonds are not supplied. There is no deficiency of service. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A6 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B12 are marked and sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.1 is filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether the complainant is a Consumer under C.P. Act?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
7. POINTS i and ii:- Admittedly the complainant sought information under R.T.I. Act, 2005 from opposite party no.1 relating to Crime Nos.17/2011 and 18/2011 of Kodumur Police Station. It is the case of the opposite parties that the information sought by the complainant was already furnished. It is further case of the complainant that the bail bonds of the accused could not be furnished as the accused in those Crime Numbers were not arrested. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties that the complainant is not a Consumer under the C.P. Act and that the present complaint is not maintainable. In support of his contention he relied on a decision reported in Revision Petition No.4061/2010 [T.Pundalika -Vs- Revenue Department (Service Division) Government of Karnataka]. In the above said decision the National Commission held that the petitioner under R.T.I. Act, 2005 cannot be claimed to be a Consumer under the Consumers Protection Act and that remedy is available for him under R.T.I. Act, 2005. In view of the decision cited above it can be said that the complainant herein is not a consumer as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of the C.P. Act. The petitioner who sought information under R.T.I. Act cannot be termed as a Consumer under section 2 (1) (d) of the C.P. Act and the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. The complainant is not entitled for any relief.
8. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 19th day of January, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of letter dated 24-03-2011 to Public
Information Officer (OP No.1), Kodumur.
Ex.A2. Postal Receipt and Acknowledgement.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of appeal to Circle Inspector of Police
(opposite party No.2), Kodumur dated 25-04-2011.
Ex.A4 Postal Receipt and Acknowledgement.
Ex.A5 Appeal to State Chief Information Commissioner,
Hyderabad dated.
Ex.A6 Postal Receipt and Acknowledgement.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.17/2011
dated 15-02-2011 Kodumur P.S., Kurnool District.
Ex.B2 Photo copy of Docket order of the court of the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool dated 28-01-2011.
Ex.B3 Photo copy of Final Report dated 26-01-2011.
Ex.B4 Photo copy of case dairy part II (Nos.4) dated 15-02-2011.
Ex.B5 Photo copy of proceedings of the Sub Divisional Police
Officer, Kurnool dated 08-05-2011.
Ex.B6 Photo copy of complaint filed by the D.Rama Chandrudu
dated 28-01-2011
Ex.B7 Photo copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.18/2011
dated 17-02-2011 Kodumur P.S., Kurnool District.
Ex.B8 Photo copy of Docket order of the court of the Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool dated 28-01-2011.
Ex.B9 Photo copy of Final report dated 24-05-2011.
Ex.B10 Photo copy of case Diary part II (Nos.6)
dated 17-02-2011.
Ex.B11 Photo copy of proceedings of the Sub Divisional Police
Officer, Kurnool dated 08-05-2011.
Ex.B12 Photo copy of complaint filed by the Smt. Varalaxmi
dated 28-01-2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
