Order NO. 03 Dated. 11.10.2022

            Ld. Advocate for the Complainant is prayed for time over office phone. Considering the provision of 36 (2) (3) and the CP Act further time cannot be granted. So, considering the urgency of the matter and Ld. Advocate is permitted to move the case virtually (videography through What’s app in the Ejlash). Ld. Advocate for the Complainant move the Admission matter, perused, Considered.

          Briefly stated the fact of the case is that OP is a public servant. The Complainant applied for supply of some documents under section 76 of the Evidence Act to the OP. The Op did not provide/supply the documents to the Complainant. The Complainant has prayed for directing the OP to provide the document along with other reliefs.

          It appears that the complainant is not a Consumer within the meaning of Section (2) (7) (i) (ii) of CP Act, 2019. The OP an officer of the Revenue Department is not a service provider. No suit or proceeding can be initiated against the public officer without issuing a notice to the Government as provided under section 80 of the CPC or without obtaining exemption from the Court before which the suit or proceeding is instituted. When that be the mandate of Law for instituting Civil suit or proceeding which is intended to safeguard and protect Government Servants in discharging their official duties. It is needless to point out a Consumer complaint alleging deficiency of service against a government servant on his failure or default in discharging his official duties is not maintainable. The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of K. Mohanasundaran Vs K.U. Gopal Krishnan Nair 2016. NCJ564 (NC) held that the complaint under Consumer Protection Act against functioning of Revenue department is not maintainable.

          As such there is no prima facie case against the OP. The complaint cannot be admitted.

Hence,

It is ordered

                                                Ordered

That the C. Case 137/2022 be and same is dismissed.