CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 5th day of September 2014
PRESENT: SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SHINY. P.R, MEMBER
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing : 21/08/2014
CC /116 / 2014
M.C.Rugmani,
W/o.C.Kandan,
Vallathu Veedu, Thekkeparambu, : Complainant
Puduppariyaram P.O, Palakkad.
Vs
Survey Superintendent, : Opposite party
Information Officer, Resurvey,
Palakkad.
O R D E R
BY SMT. SEENA.H, PRESIDENT
Complaint in brief:
Complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in not accepting application under Right to Information Act. According to the complainant, opposite party refused to accept the application stating that the complainant has affixed an used court fee stamp in her application. Complainant deny the same.
Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for Rs.10,000/- as compensation from opposite party.
Heard complainant regarding the maintainability of the case. In KaliRam Vs.State Public Information Officer cum-Deputy Excise and Taxation IV (2013) CPJ 300 (NC), Hon’ble National Commission has held that complaint with respect to right to Information Act is not maintainable before consumer forum since there is remedy available for complainant to approach appellate authority under RTI Act itself.
As per Sec18(1) RTI Act, subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire in to a complaint from any person-
(d) Who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers unreasonable.
In view of the above discussion we are of the view that complaint is not maintainable before the Forum. Hence dismissed with direction to approach appropriate authority for relief.
In the result complaint dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 5th day of September 2014
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny. P.R
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
