MR RAMSANKAR NAYAK, MEMBER … The facts of complaint in brief is that, the complainant had applied for some information under RTI Act from the OP.1 to which he was paid Rs.10/- as requisite fees through postal order No.33F387739 dt.15.4.16 but the OP.1 has not issued any information to his application with in valid period of one month. Hence he further preferred an appeal application before the OP.2 as appellate authority, through Regd. Post vide RLAD no.RO717246483IN dt.08.06.16 and paid Rs.20/- as court fees but also for no action. Hence the complainant contends that he sustained mental and physical losses due to the deficiency in service on the part of OP.s. So he prayed before the forum to allow compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- which includes the litigation cost.
2. The counsel for OP.1 has filed his counter and stated that, the case is bad for law, non joinder of necessary parties and the forum has no jurisdiction to try the case, hence is liable to be dismissed. He further contends that, the JELC is a Registered Society, nonprofit making charitable religious society and guided by its own constitution. According to the said constitution Synod Chairman is the Presiding Officer and all disputes, petitions as claimed shall be entertain through the local church like Local mandali, parish mandalis, pradhan mandali and then finally it shall referred to the Synod chairman. But in the instant case the complainant without following the procedures directly approached this forum with malafide intention for undue gain. He further contends that, the cause of action arouse out of State i.e. Jagdalpur, the parties all are within the jurisdiction of Jagdalpur, hence the case is bad for law. The case is out of meaning of Sec.2 (d) and it is pertinent that, the complainant prayed before the forum to direct the OP.s to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for defective mobile, so all the contentions are reflects the seriousness of complaint and the complainant is approached the forum with unclean hands, hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
3. The counsel for OP.1 & complainant has filed their affidavit and copy of documents. Heard them at length and perused the record.
4. It is seen from the entire transactions, the complainant has applied for some documents by paying Rs.10/- & Rs.20/- before the OP.s through RTI Act but failed to get the information hence this complaint. First of all the complainant is a petitioner of RTI and the RTI Act itself promulgates its categories through PIO of concerned office, district level, State level & National level, and the act not in derogation of any other law when it is being in force. But in the instant case the complainant without going through proper appellate approached this forum seeking justice on plea of deficiency in service.
5. It is further seen from the record that, the complainant has not made necessary party to the representatives of Local Mandalis in the instant case, hence in our view the case is intentional and it would be abuse of process of law to further proceeding. Further the complainant did not approached the present opposite parties through proper procedure as averring his grievance and the complainant failed to prove the same adducing cogent evidences before this forum. The case is quite insusceptible to the conscious of this forum, rather it shows an adverse inference of practicing dilatory tactics on the part of complainant. We have carefully considered the pleadings, evidences & the documents produced on behalf of two parties but the ground does not endure in favour of complainant. So without going to the unnecessary details consequently, we dismissed the complaint in limine. However the complainant is at liberty to seek his remedy in the court of competent jurisdiction.
Pronounced on this the 09th day of June' 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER, DCDRF,
NABARANGPUR.
