BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Wednesday the 15th day of February, 2012
C.C.No.130/2011
Between:
R.Govinda Rao, S/o Lakshmana Rao,
H.No.V/1193, Hanuman Nagar, Adoni - 518 301, Kurnool District.
…Complainant
-Vs-
The Public Information Officer,O/o Adoni Municipality,
D.No.20/78, Adoni - 518 301, Kurnool District.
...Opposite ParTy
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri Alhaj A.Mansoor Ahmed, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member)
C.C. No.130/2011
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying:-
- To direct the opposite party to furnish the information that are sought by the complainant immediately;
- To grant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the compensation for causing mental agony and hardship;
- To grant the cost of this complaint;
- To pass any other order or orders that are deem to the fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant is a R.T.I. activist and on 01-03-2011 the complainant sent an application to opposite party by seeking some information as mentioned below.
i) The actions taken report in the wake of a news item published in Eenadu Telugu Daily on 28-02-2011 in Kurnool District Edition.
- The copy of Town Planning sanctioning letter of 38 commercial establishments recognized in 2.50 acres situated in the Industrial area of Alur Road.
- Town Approval plan sanctioned to the owners of big commercial buildings in the area of Adoni Arts and Science College. The irregularities that are violated by the owners.
He paid the required fee of Rs.10/- under the said Act. The opposite party did not furnish the information to the complainant even after six months. The complainant sent an appeal to the appellate authority of opposite party but no results. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party filed counter stating that the complaint is not maintainable. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. The complainant fall within the purview of section 8 of R.T.I. Act and suitable reply has already been given to the complainant. The complainant still pursuing this petition, which is illegal. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A4 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. No exhibit is marked on behalf of opposite party.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
- To what relief?
6. POINTS :- The complainant is R.T.I. activist. It is the case of the complainant that on 01-03-2011, the complainant applied under R.T.I. Act, 2005 to opposite party seeking some information with regard to.
i) The actions taken report in the wake of a news item published in Eenadu Telugu Daily on 28-02-2011 in Kurnool District Edition.
- The copy of Town Planning sanctioning letter of 38 commercial establishments recognized in 2.50 acres situated in the Industrial area of Alur Road.
- Town Approval plan sanctioned to the owners of big commercial buildings in the area of Adoni Arts and Science College. The irregularities that are violated by the owners.
The copy of application is marked as Ex.A1 and the copy of postal receipt is marked as Ex.A2. The opposite party did not comply the requirement of the complainant. The complainant sent an appeal to the appellate authority under Ex.A3 and the copy of Postal Receipt is marked as Ex.A4.
7. It is the case of the opposite party that a suitable reply was given to the complainant. There is a separate Forum for invoking the relevant provisions of R.T.I. Act. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition.
8. In the Revision Petition No.4061/2010 [T.Pundlika –Vs- Revenue Department (Service Division) Government of Karnataka]. The National Commission held that the petitioner under R.T.I. Act, 2005 cannot be claimed to be a Consumer under the Consumers Protection Act, 2005. In view of the decision cited above it can be said that the complainant herein is not a Consumer as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of the C.P. Act. The present complainant who sought information under R.T.I. Act cannot be termed as a Consumer under section 2 (1) (d) of the C.P. Act and the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. The complainant is not entitled for any relief.
9. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 15th day of February, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite party : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of Application sent to the opposite party
dated 01-03-2011.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of Postal Receipt.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of Application sent to the Appellate
Authority dated 20-06-2011.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of Postal Receipt.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:- NILL
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
