Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/138/2015

P.Selvaraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

T.Ethirajalu - Opp.Party(s)

P.Selvaraj

26 May 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :   HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI          PRESIDENT   

                                                                THIRU.J.JAYARAM                                              JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                                          MEMBER                                                                                  

F.A.NO.138/2015

(Against the order in CC.No.271/2013, dated 28.04.2014 on the file of DCDRF, Chennai (South)

DATED THIS THE 26^th DAY OF MAY 2015

P.Selvaraj,

S/o.M.Palaniyappan,

R-48/3, Analmin Nagar,

Thottipatty Camp, MTPS (Po),                                      Appellant / Complainant

Mettur Dam – 6.

-vs-

1.       Ethirajulu,

          Deputy Secretary,

          Public Information Officer / TANGEDCO

          N.P.K.R.R.Maaligai,

          No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.

2.       Tmt.D.Thirupurasundari,

          Public Information Officer,

          Senior Personnel Officer (Inspection),

          TANGEDCO,

          No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.

3.       Rajiv Ranjan, I.A.S.,

          Chairman, TANGEDCO,                                  Respondents /Opposite parties

          N.P.K.R.R.Maaligai,

          No.144, Anna Salai, Chennai-2.                                           

         

          This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 23.04.2015, and upon perusing the materials records, this commission made the following order.

Appellant / Complainant                                    : Party in person

Counsel for Respondents /Opposite parties          : M/s.Amernath Rao Khande

J.JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER

          This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order passed by the District Forum, Chennai (South) in CC.No.271/2013, dated 28.04.2014 dismissing the complaint.

2.       The complaint is filed by the complainant claiming compensation from the opposite parties for the deficiency in service in not furnishing the information sought by the complainant from the opposite parties under RTI Act.

3.       The opposite parties have resisted the claim on the ground that the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum and that the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

4.       The District Forum considered the rival contentions and dismissed the complaint holding that the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the District Forum the complainant has preferred this appeal.

6.       First we have to decide the point whether the complaint is maintainable before the Consumer Forum.

7.       It is settled law that any application involving RTI Act does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and other Forums are specifically barred.

8.       The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Kali Ram –vs- State Public Information Officer – cum-Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner reported in IV (2013) CPJ 300 (NC) has laid down that complaint involving RTI Act, is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum/ Commission, in which it is held as follows:

          “ Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2 (1) (d), 21 (b) – Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 19 – Consumer – Information from Public Information  Officer – Complainant  cannot  be  considered as ‘ Consumer’ under Consumer Protection Act since there is remedy available for complainant to approach appellate authority under Section 19 of RTI Act.., 2005 – Complaint not maintainable.”

“22.   Act to have overriding effect :-

          The provision of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding, anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.  From this, it is beyond doubt that this Act, however, has an overriding effect in that the authorities under this Act may make independent decisions about the question whether such disclosure or non-disclosure has any overriding public interest.  Therefore, it may become necessary for the authorities to independently decide whether disclosure of information which itself being an act done in public interest, overweighs the public interest ought to be protected under those enactments.

23.     Bar of Jurisdiction of Courts –

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

9.       The Hon’ble National Commission has further held as follows:

          “This view stands emboldened by a recent judgment by a Bench consisting of Hon’ble Mr.Justice J.M.Malik and Hon’ble Dr.B.C.Gupta in the case of Smt.Tasleem Bint Hussain –vs- The State Public Information Officer, Revision Petition No.737 of 2013 decided on 1^st March, 2013 and the judgment rendered by a Bench headed by Hon’ble  Mr.Justice Ashok Bhan,  President,  in the case of T.Pundalika –vs- Revenue

Department (Service Division) Government of Karnataka. RP No.4061 of 2010, decided on 31.03.2011.”

10.     The Hon’ble National Commission, in the case of Dorai Raj  -vs-  Divisional Personnel Officer & Nodal Public Information Officer, Southern Railway, Mudurai & Anr, reported in I (2014) CPJ 444 (NC), has held as follows:

          “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 (b) – Right to Information Act, 2005 – Jurisdiction – Disclosure of Information – Maintainability of complaint – RTI Act is a code in itself – It provides for remedies available under this Act to person who has been denied any information – Remedy available under RTI Act – Complaint not maintainable.”.

11.     The RTI Act is a Code in itself.  It provides for remedies available under this Act to a person who has been denied any information.  Since, petitioner has specific remedy available to him under the RTI Act and which he has already availed, the consumer complaint does not lie under the Act.”

12.     In the light of the above decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission we hold that the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.  The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint.  There is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and we agree with the decision of the District Forum and there is no merit in the appeal.

13.              In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint.  No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                         J.JAYARAM                           R.REGUPATHI

     MEMBER                               (J) MEMBER                             PRESIDENT

 

INDEX : YES/ NO

VL/D;/PJM/RTI