DATE OF FILING : 07-03-2014.
DATE OF S/R : 09-04-2014.
DATE OF ORDER : 08-08-2014.
Debabarata Basu,
son fo late Bhabani Prasad Basu,
187, Elias Road,
Kolkata – 700058.------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
The State Public Informatin Officer ( S.P.I.O.)
Home Department ,
Government of West Bengal,
Nabanna, 325, Sarat Chatterjee Road,
Howrah - 711102.------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Order No. 7
Date : 08-08-2014.
C/R is put up today for order.
The instant hearing arose out of the submission of the o.p. that the instant complaint is not maintainable in view of the express provision in the statute itself. The Forum also took suo moto cognizance over the issue. Heard both sides. Considered.
Ld. G.P. drew our attention to Section 23 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In no uncertain terms it is embodied that ‘No Court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceedings in respect of any order made under this and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this act.’
The meaning of the word ‘court’ is very wide and not ordinarily confined to a place where justice is judicially administered. After the pronouncement in Stanly Morgan Case reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court Vol. 4, 225 Forum is also a court and as such the instant complaint shall be ousted from its jurisdiction. I am in the one with the ld. G.P. that Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 cannot empower the Forum to entertain this complaint since there is express bar under the Section 23 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The decision as cited by the complainant in a Revision Petition no. 1975 of 2005 in fact, relates to Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2002. Naturally, the Right to Information Act, 2005 cannot have any bearing with the ratio of the decision cited.
The complainant filed this complaint against reticence adopted by the o.p. and the Principal Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Home Department, over a letter dated 30-8-2013 and 19-09-2013 wherein the complainant sought information as to the fate of the written complaint before the O.C., Belghoria P.S. and Assistant Commissioner of Police, Belghoria Division, as to who hurled bomb in front of his door on 02-08-2013 at about 11.45 p.m.
The decision as cited on behalf of the o.p. as reported in AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1607 in fact puts the final nail to the power of the Forum to entertain complaint against government officials for violation of the R.T.I. Act. The Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to opine that Government can never be considered as service provider and as such any complaint U/S 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986 cannot be entertained. Though after the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court no other decisions of other High Courts or Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is required to be mentioned, we cannot check our temptation to refer one (2000) CPJ 11 wherein Hon’ble Tamil Nadu
State Commission is of opinion that official functions done by government officials cannot be the ‘service’ within the meaning of 2(1)(o) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Naturally, we are of the view that the instant complaint requires to be dismissed as it is not maintainable before this Forum in view of the discussion above.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 126 of 2014 ( HDF 126 of 2014 ) be and the same is dismissed not being maintainable.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( T.K. Bhattacharya )
President, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
