BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc.,LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A.,LLB., Member. 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.92/2009 Order dated this the 30th day of October 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Dr.S.P.Thirumala Rao, M.D., DTCD, Consultant Physician and Managing Trustee, Smt.Gowramma and Dr.Sathanur Pasupathi Memorial Multipurpose Trust, 93, 9th Cross, Gokulam 1st Stage, Mysore-02. (INPERSON) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1. The Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, (Public Authority under Right to Information Act), Mandya. 2. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, Mandya. (By Sri.S.L.Ramesh Babu., District Govt. Pleader) Date of complaint 27.07.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite parties 19.08.2009 Date of order 30.10.2009 Total Period 2 Months & 11 Days Result The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. However, there is no order as to cost. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party directing to 1st Opposite party to immediately designate his public information officer; to desist 2nd Opposite party from acting on the applications filed under RTI Act; to direct the 1st Opposite party to supply information sought in the application dated 18.06.2009, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and to direct the Opposite parties to remit Rs.90,000/- to District Consumer Forum Welfare Fund. 2. The case of the Complainant is that he is a Consumer activist running consumer clubs in several high schools in Mysore City. With an intention of creating awareness of freedom struggle in the Mysore state he took 20 members of the consumer club for a Grahaka Hitha Rakshana Yathra on 13.03.2009 and visited Dwaja Sathyagraha Soudha at Shivapura, Maddur Taluk. He was greatly perturbed about the present condition of the soudha and students were also very well disappointed. He felt that this memorial should be brought back to its glory so that future generation would learn to be patriotic and serve the country. Therefore, he has submitted application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act to the public information officer of 1st Opposite party seeking certain information, enclosing a postal order dated 12.06.2009. The Complainant has received a letter dated 01.07.2009 from the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, signed by 2nd Opposite party rejecting the application and refused to give information sought. The Opposite party has willfully distorted the address of the Complainant in order to reject the application on the ground that only Citizens are entitled to get information under the Right to Information Act and not firms and societies. This refusal amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint is filed. 3. The 1st Opposite party has filed version contending that since the application is filed by the society which do not come under the definition of Citizen, the application was closed giving reason for not furnishing the information and endorsement dated 01.07.2009 was sent to the Complainant. Therefore, the Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable and the dispute that has arisen would not come within the jurisdiction of the District Forum. The refusal to give information under the Right to Information Act 2005 and Karnataka Right to Information Act 2000 is proper and in case the complaint is aggrieved, he has to question the same by filing Appeal under Section 19 of Right to Information Act 2005 or Section 7 of Karnataka Right to Information Act 2000 and the power of determining the validity of endorsement by Opposite party will not come under the jurisdiction of the Forum. The dispute pleaded by the Complainant is a question of law and is not maintainable before this Forum. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. During trail, both sides have filed affidavit and both sides have filed written arguments. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the records. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1) Whether the grievance pleaded in the complaint is a consumer dispute and hence this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute? 2) Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency of service? 3) Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought for? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. POINTS NO.1 to 3:- The undisputed fact is that the Complainant has filed an application as per Annexure-A & B on 18.06.2009 seeking some information with regard to the Dwaja Sathyagraha Smaraka Bhavana, Shivapura, Maddur Taluk to the Public Information Officer, Office of the Deputy Commissioner at Mandya and 2nd Opposite party has sent endorsement dated 01.07.2009 as per Annexure-C to the Complainant stating that the application was considered, Trust and Societies do not come under the definition of Citizen under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the information sought for on behalf of the trust cannot be furnished. 9. Now, the Complainant has contended that the refusal to give information amounts to deficiency in service and actionable under C.P. Act. But, the contention of the Opposite party is that the dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite party is not a consumer dispute and failure to furnish information under the Right to Information Act, does not give right to approach Consumer Forum alleging deficiency in service and in the present case that application is rejected on the ground that the applicant is not a Citizen, that endorsement cannot be challenged before the Forum and that endorsement is to be challenged before proper authority and further contended the wrong interpretation of the word or definition does not constitute deficiency in service. Section 7 cannot be challenged before the District Forum, there is no complaint that all the clauses of Section 7(7) of the Act are not furnished. 10. It is contended by the Complainant that the Opposite party in his reply has not sent stated the appellate authority and the time limit provided for the Appeal, therefore it amounts to deficiency in service. 11. The Complainant has relied upon the order of the Central Information Commission in the case of Dr.S.P.Thirumala Rao, -Vs- National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. But that order is not applicable to the facts of the case and in that case, it is observed that it should be ensured that all the RTI applications are responded to by the designated CPIO (Commission Public Information Officer). Further, the Complainant has relied upon the order of the Karnataka Information Commission dated 30.06.2008. That order is also not helpful, because the commission recommends to High Court of Karnataka to consider the suggestion to accept the postal orders and demand drafts for payment of fee under the Right To Information Act, 2005. Further, the Complainant has relied upon the decision of the Honble National Commission in R.P.No.1975/2005 dated 28.05.2009, in which the Complainant Dr.S.P.Thirumala Rao is a party. In that case, the Opposite party did not furnish the information within 15 days under the Act and no action was taken on the application at all and therefore, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service and sought for compensation. The District Forum allowed the complaint. But, the Honble State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and then in revision the Honble National Commission has held that though the Act provides for penalties under Section 9 of the said Act on the competent authority, yet, the Act does not provide for any remedy to the consumers who have sought information under the said Act for the deficiency of service in the nature of compensation or damages for not furnishing the information sought to which they are entitled to get under the said Act. Section 3 of the C.P.Act provides additional remedy in addition to the remedies provided under other Acts and it is not in derogation of any provisions of any law. The Consumer Fora has, therefore, the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in respect of deficiency in service in the given facts especially when information sought was not furnished. The competent authority was required to give information within 15 days of the application in terms of Section 5 of the said Act. Further, the said information was not furnished. The Complainant had approached the District Forum claiming compensation for deficiency of service. Even though, further remedy may be available to the applicant in case information is not supplied within 15 days in terms of Section 5, yet, there is no bar to approach the District Forum for deficiency of service. The remedy under the said Act would take care of disciplinary action and penalty against the competent authority in not furnishing the information, but no remedy is provided under the said Act to the applicant seeking information therein if information sought is not provided resulting in deficiency of service on that count. 12. In the present case, the Complainant has paid Rs.10/- to the Opposite party seeking information under the Right To Information Act and therefore he has become a Consumer. But, the crucial question is whether the endorsement given by the Opposite party refusing to furnish information sought for provides cause of action that could be entertained as a dispute under the C.P.Act or whether the Complainant should question the same before appellant authority provided under the Right To Information Act. 13. According to the Complainant, refusal to give the information sought for amounts deficiency of service and failure to notify and designated officer by 1st Opposite party under the Right To Information Act as Public Information Officer is a deficiency in service. 14. Now, the Opposite party has produced the notification dated 04.03.2008 specifying Public Information Officer attached to the District Commissioner Office under Section 5(1) of the Act and Section 5(2) of the Act and the Appellate Authority under Section 19(1) of the Act and he has also produced the order of the Government designating Head Quarter Assistant to the District Commissioner Office as Additional Deputy Commissioner and Additional District Magistrate. It is well known that in the absence of Deputy Commissioner, the Additional Deputy Commissioner will be in-charge of the Deputy Commissioner. The endorsement to the Complainant is issued by Additional Deputy Commissioner, that Additional Deputy Commissioner was earlier the HQA of the D.C. Office and he is a Public Information Officer under Section 5(1) of the Act and it cannot be said that the endorsement is not issued by the proper authority. In the said endorsement, the Opposite party has refused to give the information on the ground that the applicant is a trustee and the trust cannot come under the definition of Citizen mentioned in the Right To Information Act. The contention of the Complainant is that Section 6(1) of the Right To Information Act, says a person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English or Hindi etc . and a person is not defined in the Right To Information Act and therefore, the definition of person in General Clauses Act has to be considered. Of course, under the General Clause Act, the person means a Firm, a Hindu undivided family, a Co-operative society, any other association whether registered under the Societies Registration Act or not. But in our view, the definition of person in General Clauses Act cannot be applied to the person mentioned in the Right To Information Act, because as per Section 3 of the Act subject to the provision of this Act all Citizens shall have the right to information. So, the word person mentioned in Section 6(1) of the Act relates to the word Citizen under Section 3 of the Act and any other interpretation cannot be applied at all. So, in view of the word Citizen mentioned in the Right To Information Act, the it is to be considered whether Complainant filed an application as a Citizen or on behalf of a Trust as contended by the Opposite party. The Complainant who is the applicant seeking information under the Right To Information Act is described as follows; Dr.S.P.Thirumala Rao, Managing Trustee, Smt.Gowramma and Dr.Sathanur Pasupathi Memorial Multipurpose Charitable Trust, Mysore. The application is in the letter head of the Charitable Trust and Dr.S.P.Thirumala Rao, has signed as a Managing Trustee as per Annexure B. Annexure A is the details of information sought for. So, it can be safely said that Dr.S.P.Thirumala Rao, has not filed an application under the Right To Information Act, as a Citizen, but it is clear that as a Managing Trustee of the Charitable Trust has filed an application to the Public Information Officer, D.C. Office, Mandya under the Right To Information Act. Therefore, the Opposite party has refused to furnish any information sought for. So, when the application seeking information under the Right To Information Act is not by a Citizen defined under the Right To Information Act, the question of furnishing the information does not arise at all and on the question of law, the Opposite party has refused to give information. It is not the case that the information cannot be furnished for other reasons. It is not the case, the Opposite party has failed to take any action on the application seeking for information within 15 days as provided under the Right To Information Act. In this case, the question of deficiency of service does not arise as providing service of information does not arise as applicant is not a person entitled for information sought for under the Right To Information Act. So, the question of interpretation of the definition of citizen by the Opposite party under the Right To Information Act, does not amounts to deficiency of service, but it is a question of law to be challenged before proper authority. The Karnataka Right To Information Act, provides the right of Appeal under Section 7 of the Act to question the order of the Public Information Officer, if the information sought for refused. Under these circumstances, the remedy available to the Complainant is only to question the endorsement issued by the Opposite party which relates to the interpretation of the word Person and Citizen and not rejecting the application. on the other grounds of refusal to furnish information and hence, it is not a Consumer dispute and the interpretation of statute cannot be questioned before the Forum and the Forum has jurisdiction only power to determine the deficiency of service with relation to the service. Even, not mentioning Section 7(7)(ii)(iii) of the Act will not come under the definition of deficiency of service as contended by the Complainant. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no Consumer dispute and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as there is no deficiency in service as pleaded by the Complainant. 15. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. However, there is no order as to cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 30th day of October 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
