Orissa

Rayagada

CC/22/2016

Smt. Satyabhama Rath - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE D.F.O., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

06 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

                          

                                                 C.C. Case  No. 22 / 2016.

 P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                             President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu, B.Sc.                                    Member

            Satyabhama  Rath, age,79 years, W/o Bhagbat Prasad Rath, Ryot Colony,3^rd          Line, Rayagada.                                                                                                                                                                                                            …….Complainant

                                                            Vrs.

DFO, Rayagada.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .…..Opp.Party

Counsel for the parties:                                           

For the complainant: In Person

For the O.P: Sri Y.Madhu, A.G.P. Rayagada.

                                                            JUDGMENT

                        The facts of the complaint  in brief is that to one Sri Sukanta Kumar Sahu was given a piece of land in the garden  for building a model school and he cut some  trees  in the garden  giving assurance that he had a talk with the forest and revenue department and would get their permission within a short time and he got their permission.  But it is surprised to find that   the OP who had never come to the garden wrote falsely that he had visited the garden of the  complainant with the Tahasildar and measured the girths of trees.   As per forest act the next  step was conversion of the land ownership and to dispose of the forest products  and paraphernia was completed by the complainant. The assistant conservator   measured the girth of the logs and passed  them.  The hammer was registered and  the property of the complainant in the forest office and he was given the right to the own hammer till 31.07.2016. The complainant want to donate  all the logs to the public  of Rayagada and wrote a letter to the collector accordingly and also informed the DFO .  Hence, prayed to pass order for removal of the logs lying in the garden of the complainant.   Hence, this complaint.

                        Being  noticed the OP appeared through AGP, Rayagada and files written version inter alia denying the petition allegations on all its material particulars. The petitioner is not a consumer  and the subject matter of the dispute does not come under the provisions of the C.P.Acat,1986.  The Opp.Party  is not a trader  nor service provider  in as much as he is an employee of the Government who work for the beneficial interest of the public and that the petitioner is also not  a consumer with the meaning and ambit  of C.P.Act as such this case is liable to be dismissed.  The private contract and assurances between the petitioner and Sri Sukanta Kumar Sahu  and his purported correspondences with the Forest and Revenue Departments are not a matter of concern of the opposite party. The OP on application of the petitioner, authorized the Asst. Conservator of Forest, Rayagada Division to issue transit permit in favour of the petitioner for removal of five teaks and one jamun tree from her land  as per the provisions  and rules. In order to transit the permit, the petitioner  shall make an application to the office of the OP  but the petitioner did not comply the direction. Subsequently the OP extended the authorization up to 10.02.16  under intimation to the complainant. Even then the complainant has not taken any initiation to transport the timber by getting the T.T. Permit.  The government is a constitutional body and its administration can not be misinterpreted as service under consumer protection act and the opposite party has not committed any wrong under the  C.P.Act as such this case is erroneous, bad under the law and liable to be dismissed.    

                                                                        FINDINGS

                         In the course of hearing we heard form both the parties at length. Perused the complaint, counter version of the Ops and the documents available in the record.

                        The Ops vehemently argued that as the complainant  has not deposited the required fees and not preferred any application and  filed present  complaint in the Consumer Forum is not maintainable at all. On the other hand the complainant urged that as the Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent legislation and as an additional remedy available to the consumers as such  as per Section 3 of C.P.Act, the complaint is maintainable in the  Consumer Forum under the C.P.Act.

                        Sec.3 of C.P.Act provides additional remedy in addition to the remedies provided under other acts and it is not in derogation of any provision of any law. The Consumer Forum has therefore jurisdiction to entertain the complaint  in respect of deficiency of services in the given facts.

                        Harassment of a common man by public authority is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is for more grievous crime and corruption  thrive and prosper in the society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness. An ordinary citizen instead of complaining and fighting succumbs to the pressure of undesirable functioning in offices in stead of standing against it therefore the award of compensation for harassment by public authorities not only compensates the individual  satisfies  him personally but helps in curing  social evil. It may result to providing the work culture and help in changing the outlook.

                        Hence, to meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed.

                                                                                  ORDER

                        The  opposite party    is directed to  provide assistance to the old lady and issue transit permit in favour of the petitioner for removal of logs from  her land as per the provisions and rules of the forest department. There shall be no order as to the cost.              Pronounced in open forum today on this 24^th   day of  September,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                       

 

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

 

            Member                                                                                               President

Documents relied upon:

By the complainant:

1. Copy of letter No.5977 dt.22.11.2015
2. Copy of joint verification report
3. Copy of sketch map
4. Copy of letter No.5975 dt.22.11.2015

By the Opp.Party: Nil

 

                                                                                                               President