DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 29 OF 2015
Prasanta Kumar Mishra,(44Yrs.),
S/O: Late Girish Mohan Mishra,
R/O: Opposite Gosala,Jharsuguda Town,
PO/ PS/Dist- Jharsuguda, Odisha………………………………. Complainant No.1.
Naresh Kumar Agrawal,(51 Yrs.),
S/o: Sri Soniram Agrawal,
R/O: Opposite Gosala,Jharsuguda Town,
PO/ PS/Dist- Jharsuguda, Odisha………………………………. Complainant No.2.
Ashok Kumar Jalan, (40 Yrs.),
S/O: Late Sawarmal Jalan,
R/O: Munga Para,Jharsuguda Town,
PO/PS/Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha………………………………Complainant No.3.
Versus
- Executive Engineer,
P.H.section, Tulsi Nagar,
Balangir, Odisha.
- Public Information Officer(P.I.O),
P.H..Section, Tulsi Nagar,
Balangir, Odisha………………………………............................... Opp. Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant Self.
For the OPP. Parties Shri Mukesh Ku.Tiwari, Adv. & Associates.
Date of Order: 26.04.2016
Present
1. Shri S.L. Behera, President.
2. Smt. A. Nanda, Member (W).
Shri S.L. Behera, President : - Deficiency in service against the Op regarding non
supply of information under RTI Act is the grievance of the Complainant.
2. In short, the case of the complainant is that, being a social worker, complainant applied an application under the RTI Act before the Op (PIO) for supplying certain information in relation to some information’s for the interest of the public at large on payment of the application fees of Rs. 10/- each in shape of Treasury Chhalan. On receipt of the application, O.Ps. remain silent and did not provide any information as to the desired documents requested for supply. The Ops just to harass the complainant after a delay of long time and his application could not be considered, subsequently the said application is transferred to District Consumer Forum, Jharsuguda as because the complainant is residing at Jharsuguda district and no any information in the office of P.H.,Tulsi Nagar, Bolangir. It is further alleged that, the complainant serve notice through their learned advocate but no any response on behalf of O.ps. which amounts to deficiency in service by the Ops. Hence this case was filed against O.Ps. praying for passing order directing Ops to supply information to the complainant as per the application apply before him with payment of compensation and litigation cost of the case towards harassment caused by the Ops.
3. The Op entered appearance before the Forum through their learned advocate by filing written version on behalf of the Ops admitting the fact of receiving application for supply of information under RTI Act from the complainant and denying all the allegation made by the complainant under the ground of territorial jurisdiction, hence there is no question of any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Accordingly the reliefs sought for in complaint petition should not to be granted in any manner and deserved to be rejected with exemplary costs.
4. Heard the case from both the sides, perused the complaint petition, written statement, and documents available in the records. In view of above circumstances in relation to Right to Information, and referring a decision as passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Sanjay Kumar Mishra – Vrs – P.I.O & Others ( 2015(1) CPR – 171 ), we inclient
dismiss the complaint petition with liberty to the complainant for filing their present case before the proper Court of law (Jurisdiction), subject to exemption of limitation for the period of pending case before the Forum.
Accordingly the case is dispose of.
Order pronounced in the open court today on this the 26th day of April 2016, copy of this order shall be communicated to the parties as per Rule.
I Agree,
A.Nanda,Sr.Member S.L.Behera,President
Dictated and corrected by me.
S. L. Behera, President.
