The sphere of complaint is very short that the complainant made a R.T.I. (right to information) to the OP department i.e. Principal Agriculture Training Center Malda for some information (queries), but those were neglected by the department though he paid fee of Rs.10 for the information. Thereby he is a consumer in respect of getting information. For not having those information(queries) he availed this commission to get his relief.

OP department did not respond though summon received. Naturally ex-party hearing arose.

In order to substantiate the complaint, the complainant examined himself in affidavit and also filed the sheet of queries to the department which marked as exhibit- 1.

Through WNA the complainant/ council of the complainant submitted that as per section 2 of CP Act opposite party renders service as per the demand of the applicant after receiving money. In the instant case OP not yet supplied information to the complainant which tantamount to deficiency in service which is the meaning and semantic of the provision of Law. Due to deficiency in service cause by the OP the complainant is suffering irreparable loss and mental agony. So he prays relief as per Prayer. They filed citation SLP (C) NO. 4272 of 2015.

DECISION

This commission carefully perused the complaint and queries mark as exhibit-1.

Now on perusal of complaint,

Firstly the commission do not find from any clause of the complaint that what nexus remain in between the complainant and the reason of placing queries to the department i.e. who is he (Complainant)? And why such queries are important for him? Or whether he has active role on knowing such queries under exhibt-1.- But those were not cleared by the complainant in his complaint petition .

Secondly, on going through the queries marked as exhibit-1, we, the commission find query No. “C” is vague or is not possible to answer by the department unless factually any auction takes place.

Query No. “D” is also not possible to answer unless and until any auction held.

Query No. “H,I,J,K,L” all are self contradictory to each other. That means if query No. “H” is not known to the complainant that order of D.M. was passed in respect of alleged auction why the complainant wants to know about the date, month of it or its type and memo of order or what step was taken against that order, that means he knew that D.M. has passed the order, hence he placed such questions.

So, if he knew that D.M. already had made any order of auction, why he put such questions to the department.

Accordingly this commission holds that the complainant completely failed to prove himself as a consumer in good sense though paid fee. He failed to disclose what nexus with him and these queries or his status to know about the internal departmental information. No passerby is entitled to get any information from any department either State Government or from any private sector unless and until he discloses his status to be informed. 

Complaint miserable fails.

Hence,  ordered,

Complaint petition takes no positive effect. No order of cost is made.

Let a copy of judgment/final order be supplied to the party at a free of cost.