One Narayan Kumar Saha, the complainant, hinges before this commission to the effect that he filed one RTI application for obtaining information from OP, the Executive Engineer of PWD on 13.05.2021 with payment of Rs. 10 as fee but time passed he did not get any reply from him when OP has solemn duty to reply within 30 days from 13.05.2021. So this complainant suffered irreparable loss for this deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. hence he approached this commission for proper relief as an order of payment by the OP two lakhs for mental agony and one lakhs as litigation cost.

          In order to substantiate his contention he examined himself and filed a Xerox copy of documents of Form A alleged as application of RTI.

OP did not appear. 

Decision

          This commission has carefully gone through the complaint and application Form A.

On perusal our first point of view is that this complainant did not disclose his status before this commission/ court either in complaint petition or in evidence with affidavit that in which status he is worthy to be informed all such point of official maters of PWD (Roads Dept.), what nexus with him to this department for which an executive engineer is duty bound to inform about this point under Form A. Obviously any passerby who has no locus-standi  is not entitled to be informed about any official matters of department if he has no concern to be known. Mere giving fees attached to the application does not enable any fit-less person to the department either government or private concern to be in the status of consumer.

          We, find no part of deficiency in service or part of unfair trade practice of executive engineer (OP) to this specific complaint when locus standi of knowing information of the complainant is not disclosed.

Hence,     ordered

          Complaint falls in vain. No order of cost is made.