Both parties are represented by the Ld. Advocates.
Today is fixed for hearing on the side of the complainant regarding maintainability application filed on behalf of the OPs.
The case is taken up for hearing on the side of the complainant. Heard the Ld. Advocate of the complainant in full. At the time of hearing, Ld. Advocate of the complainant submits that, they have already referred judgement passed by the Siliguri Circuit Bench of WBSCDRC in First Appeal Case No. A/15/2019 and also filed photocopy of judgement passed by the NCDRC, New Delhi in Revision Case No. 1024/2019 and also filed photocopy of judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 4272 of 2015, AIR 2019 Supreme Court 4357.
The case is taken up for passing order in respect of the Application dated 16.01.2024 filed on behalf of the OPs. By filing an application Ld. Advocate of the OPs praying for dismissal of the case on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable as per law.
In the maintainability application as well as during hearing, Ld. Advocate the OPs have stated that, the complainant has filed this case under section 17 and 34 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking various relieves and the complaint is not maintainable in fact as well as in law in the present form and manner. Ld. Advocate of the OPs have also stated that, the complainant has filed this case on misconception of law and the complainant has impleaded the OPs without having any valid grounds and there is no cause of action in filing of this case against the OPs. It is further stated on behalf of the OPs that the complainant has filed this case with ill intention to harass the OPs and the schedule of the land mentioned in the RTI Application dated 01.06.2023 pertains to RS Plot No. 1017, 1018 and 1019 of Mouza Kismat Sukhani, Sheet No. 2 JL No. 10 under PS Rajganj, Dist Jalpaiguri and the same land schedule was a matter which was subjudice before the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in WP No. 19440 of 2007 and the OPs have already filed an affidavit in opposition before the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta and the matter was taken on record by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in its order dated 07.02.2020 in connection with WP No. 19440 of 2007. It is further submitted by the Ld. Advocate of the OPs that, the entire matter of the complaint petition is relating within ambit of RTI Act 2005 and therefore the instant case is not maintainable before this Commission and the entire grievances of the complainant arose out of RTI related matters and the complainant always had/ has recourse of an alternate remedy wherein he could have easily preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble WB State Information Commission or Central Information Commission being the appropriate Appeallate Authority u/s 19(3) of the RTI
Act 2005 and the complainant without availing the same has filed this complaint and there is no scope of reviewing the matter by the OPs before this Commission owing to lack of jurisdiction. Ld. Advocate of the OPs have also stated that, the complainant has filed this case on some false and fabricated allegations and therefore the case is not maintainable and the complainant has filed this case for deriving unlawful pecuniary gain in the form of compensation from the OPs.
Ld. Advocate of the OPs have filed the copy of writ application being no. WP 19440 of 2007and also filed copy of affidavit in opposition along with copy of order dated 07.02.2020, 05.12.2023 along with letter dated 14.06.2023 vide memo no. 128/RR address to Madhab Dhara on the subject of information under RTI Act 2005 issued by SPIO, RR & R Department Jalpaiguri and copy of letter being memo no. 353 / RTI/ DL& LRO/ JAL/2022 dated 26.09.2023 issued in favour of Madhab Dhara, issued by Appeallate Authority u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 & Addl. District Magistrate and DL & LRO Jalpaiguri. They have also filed order sheet being order no. 2 dated 12.09.2023 passed in Appeal Case No. XIII/ 16/RTI/2023 passed by Appeallate Authority u/s 19(1) of RTI Act 2005 & Addl. District Magistrate and DL & LRO Jalpaiguri.
Ld. Advocate of the complainant at the time of hearing, submits that, they have already filed written objection against the maintainability application filed on behalf of the OPs. Ld. Advocate of the complainant during hearing submits that, they have already filed written objection where they specifically stated, that the application of the OPs is not maintainable in law as well as facts. He further submits that, the statements made in the application of the OPs are not at all correct and denied by the complainant and the complainant has sufficient case against the OPs and the OPs are jointly and severally liable for providing compensation for deficiency in service. Ld. Advocate further submits that, there is sufficient cause of action for filing of this complaint and the complainant has specifically stated in Para No. 13 of the complaint since when the cause of action arose which is still continuing. It is further stated on behalf of the complainant that, the OPs have deprived the complainant by acting capriciously, arbitrarily and negligently which has caused mental harassment and mental agony upon the complainant. It is further submission of the Ld. Advocate of the complainant that, this Commission has statutory obligation to award compensation. Ld Advocate of the complainant further submits that, the complainant has filed written objection disclosing para-wise specific objection and he praying for dismissal of the maintainability application filed on behalf of the OPs.
Having heard the Ld. Advocate of both the sides, and on perusal of the entire record including the maintainability application filed on behalf of the OPs along with documents filed by them including the written objection of the complainant as well as decisions referred by the complainant, it reveals that the complainant has filed this case u/s 17 and 34 of Consumer Protection Act 2019. From the complaint it reveals that, the main allegations against the OPs are that, they did not provide proper information to the complainant regarding the RTI Application. From the complaint as well as written version of the OPs it reveals that, this case is complex in nature and over the self same issue one writ petition being no. WP 19440 of 2007 was pending before the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta which was preferred by Madhab Dhara (Complainant of this case) and others. The proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, the complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or the cases involving tortuous acts.
From the record it further reveals that another WPA 483/2024 filed on behalf of Madhab Dhara and others vs State of West Bengal has already been disposed of on 12.03.2024. From the Memo No. 312/RR dated 05.10.2016 issued by Addl. District Magistrate (RR), Jalpaiguri address to Sri Madhab Dhara (Complainant) it reveals that, the Addl. District Magistrate (RR) by supplying information under RTI Act has stated that they have supplied information under RTI Act 2005 from 2013 to 2016 to the complainant about 15 times on the self same applications. From the ct no. 654 dated 05.12.2023 it appears that, the WPA 19440 of 2007 has also been disposed off. It further reveals from the record that, though the WPA being no. 19440 of 2007 & WPA No. 483 of 2024 have been disposed off before the Hon’ble High Court Calcutta but the complainant has stated nothing in its written objection which is nothing but the suppression of the fact. Moreover, the First Appeal of the complaint being no. XIII/ 16/RTI/2023 which was preferred by the present complainant had already been disposed off on 12.09.2023 and against that order the complainant without availing the provisions of section 19(3) of the RTI Act 2005, has filed this complaint before this Commission.
It is needless to mention here that, a second appeal against the decision under subsection 1 of section 19 of RTI Act shall lie within 90 days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission u/s 19 (3) of the RTI Act 2005 but the complainant did not prefer any second appeal.
It is fact that, during the pendency of WP No.19440 of 2007 the complainant has filed this complaint on 07.11.2023.
The judgements referred on the side of the complainant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
Considering all, we are of the view that, due to suppression of facts on the side of the complainant in filing of this complaint and as the averments of the complaint are complex in nature, the case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer.
In view of the above let the petition of the complainant be returned to the complainant along with annexure and documents filed by the complainant as the complaint is not maintainable.
