PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                             CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.59/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Shri Prem Prakash Panigrahi, Aged about 61 years

S/O-Late Narendra Panigrahi,

R/O- Sakhipada PS-Dhanupali,

Po/Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha-768001.                       .……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

Surya Narayan Samal, PIO cum District Sub-Registrar

Office of District Sub-Registrar,

Sambalpur-768001, Odisha.                                   …...……….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant            :-      Self
2. For the O.P.s                        :-      Sri. A.K. Senapati, Govt. Pleader, Sambalpur

Date of Filing:24.04.2023,Date of Hearing :31.07.2023,Date of Judgement : 28.08.2023

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that on 16.11.2022 the Complainant sought for information from District Registrar Cum ADM, Sambalpur who forwarded the application to the O.P. The O.P. PIO wilfully not provided information about item No.3 and 5 of the RTI Application.

Item No.3:  D.S.R. Surya Kumar Samal’s C.C.R/Service Record photo copy be                    

                            Supplied.

Item No.5:  Photo Copy of the assets properties, movable/immovable by surya

                            Samalpur, DSR, Sambalpur be supplied.

The O.P. not provided the information by giving reply through his letter No. 3210/regd. Dated 14.12.2022 that the information’s are not available. The O.P. has violated the transparency law of the nation thereby deficient in his service.

2. The O.P. after appearance submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and the Right to Information Act, 2005 bars the jurisdiction of any court or other proceeding. The available information has been supplied to the Complainant out due to non-availability item No.3 & 5 of the RTI application not supplied. Due to misconception of the Complainant complaint has been filed. There is no any deficiency in service of the O.P. 
3. Perused the copy of R.T.I. application(Annexure-1) and reply of the O.P. ( Annexure-2). The O.P. cited Vijay Kumar Vs. complaint Authority (RTI) Employment Exchange & other in R.P. No. 3137/2013 of the Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C., New Delhi, Tarun Agrawal V Rajasthan public service Commission in R.P. No.2124/2015 and Kaliram V State public information officer dated 09.10.2013 of the Hon’ble N.C.D.R.C, New Delhi.

Learned advocate for the O.P. submitted that the R.T.I. Act, 2005 is having overriding effect and as per section 23 of the R.T.I. Act, 2005:

“No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act, and no such order shall be called in question otherwise by way of an appeal under this Act.”

Sri Senapati, learned advocate for O.P. further submitted that the Consumer fora are not armed with the power of the R.T.I. Act and this view was already taken by State Commission in T.Pundalika V Revenue Deptt. (S.D) Govt. of Karnataka in Rev. Petition No. 4061/2010 dated 31.03.201. The Complainant can not be considered as a consumer and there is remedy available for the Complainant to approach the appellate authority u/s 19 of the R.T.I. Act, 2005.

4. The Complainant submitted that the Public information officers(PIOs) is a public servant and discloses the assets before the government. An information when sought for by the citizen, the public servant is obliged to refer the same to the relevant office where it is available. The O.P. has violated the spirit of the RTI Act, 2005 by not disclosing the activities of the government servants with honesty, fairness and power of enrichment. The accountability and transparency has not been maintained.

On 16.11.2022 the Complainant has paid Rs. 10/- I.P.O. No. 51F469203 and is a consumer of the O.P. The O.P. is deficient in his service by not providing information to the Complainant.

5. After going through the contention of both the parties the following issues are framed:
103606587.  

1. Whether payment of Rs. 10/- postal order is a consideration and the Complainant is a consumer of the O.P. ?
2. Whether by non-providing information to the Complainant or non-referring to appropriate office the O.P. is deficient in service?
3. What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

Issue No.1 Whether payment of Rs. 10/- postal order is a consideration and the Complainant is a consumer of the O.P. ?

The Complainant has paid Rs. 10/- India Postal order to-wards fees under the Right to Information Act, 2005 which is not denied by the O.P. The O.P. only cited decisions of hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi wherein it is clearly held that an information seeker is not a ‘Consumer’ as remedy is available under the R.T.I. Act, 2005 and the R.T.I. Act, 2005 has overriding effect.

The decisions cited by the O.P. are in consonance with the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. For better Protection of the Consumers the new Act, 2019 came into force to meet the new age challenges. The Act, 2019 in Section 100 clearly says:

“Act not in derogation of any other law- The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.” Accordingly, the provisions of the C.P. Act, 2019 is in addition to the RTI Act, 2005. No doubt in R.T.I. Act, 2005 appeal provisions are there but when there is question of “deficiency in service” the C.P. Act, 2019 will work as an alternative and addition to the R.T.I. Act, 2005. An information seeker paying fees of Rs. 10/- to get information and the PIO providing service receiving the amount as consideration. Accordingly, the citations filed by the O.P. are not applicable in this case. The Complainant is a consumer of the O.P. as very purpose of the C.P. Act, 2019 is to provide information to customers which is their basic right.

The issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO. 2 Whether by non-providing information to the Complainant or non-referring to appropriate office the O.P. is deficient in service?

The O.P. vide letter No. 3210 dated 14.12.2022 informed the Complainant that the information’s are not available in his office. The objectives of the R.T.I. Act, 2005 is to maintain transparency and good governance. The Complainant sought for information from the O.P. and the O.P. himself is the custodian of the records. If at all the information are not available then it was his duty to refer the R.T.I. Application to the appropriate office. The O.P. failed to perform his duty as Public Information officer. Which amounts to deficiency in service.

The second point of consideration is that whether the information sought for can be disclosed or not. Providing information can not be an invasion to the personal life of the public authority. In the present case the O.P. has not taken the plea of ‘invasion’

It implies that the information can be provided. As a public authority the assets movable/immovable are disclosed before the government every year. The transferred application came from District Registrar, Cum A.D.M. , Sambalpur which further implies that the information is available with the O.P. In the official web-site also the details are not disclosed Non –disclosure of information to the Complainant it amounts to deficiency in service.

The issue is answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO. 3 What relief the Complainant is entitled to get?

          From Supra discussion it is clear that the Complainant is entitled for the information and accordingly it is order:

ORDER

The Complaint is allowed on contest against the O.P. The O.P. is directed to provide information sought for by Complainant in item No.3 & 5 of the R.T.I. application dated 16.11.2022 within one month of this order. In case of non-compliance the Complainant is at liberty to prefer appeal before the appropriate Forum.

 Order pronounced in the open court on this 28^th day of August 2023.

Supply free copies to the parties.