Orissa

Rayagada

CC/101/2021

Sri Panchanan Hota - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Supdt. sub-Jail - Opp.Party(s)

Self

13 Aug 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

POST  /  DIST: Rayagada,  STATE:  ODISHA,  Pin No. 765001.

                                                      ******************

C.C.case  No.     101      / 2021.                           Date.       13   . 8. 2021

 

Sri Panchanan Hota,  S/O: Late  Birasing Hota, Lachaman Dhepo Street, Po: Gunupur,Dist: Rayagada.,    (Odisha). 765  001.

                                                                                    …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Superintendent of Sub-Jail, Gunupur, Dist:Rayagada                                      

                                                                                                             … Opposite parties.

                                                ORDER.        

 

          The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non supply  required documents  under R.T.I. act.

       The case is posted to admission for hearing.  During hearing on admission this  commission  has  relied various citations  of the apex  courts.

On perusal of the  complaint petition this  Commission observed  that the matters relating  to non supply of information  under R.T.I Act,2005. will not comes under the purview of the C.P. Act.  Where there is a special remedy is available to the parties under the R.T.I Act, 2005 provided by the legislature hence  this  commission  did not inclined to invoke its jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.  Hence  this commission has lack of jurisdiction to entertain the  above dispute  and adjudicate  the same under the provisions  of the C.P. Act.  The case is not maintainable in view of the above discussion.

It is held and reported in C.P.R. 2015(1) page No. 171 in the case of S.K.Mishra and others Vrs. PIO  and  others  where in the hon’ble National Commission observed “Jurisdiction of Consumer forum  to intervene in the matters   arising out of provisions  of RTI Act is barred by  necessary implication  U/S- 23 of the said Act”.

Further the person seeking information  under the provisions of RTI Act can not be said to be a consumer  Vis-A –Vis  public authority concerned  or CPIO/PIO nominated  by it and (ii) the jurisdiction of the consumer forum to intervene in the matters  arising out of the provisions  of the RTI Act is barred by necessary implication as also under the  provisions of Section -23 of the said Act. Consequently  no complaint by a person alleging deficiency in the services rendered by the  CPIO/PIO is maintainable  before a Consumer Commission. 

Again  the legislature has empowered the State Information Commission, to impose  penalty upon the errant CPIO/PIO besides recommending disciplinary action against  them.  Additionally,  Sub-section (6) of Section-18 empowers them to direct the concerned   public authority to pay suitable compensation to the information seeker who has suffered any loss or other detriment on account of the   acts, omission or inaction  of its CPIO/PIO, as the case may be. Therefore the redressal mechanism provided under the RTI Act  can not be  said to be in any manner less efficacious  then the remedy available before a consumer Commission.

In view of the above discussion and citation  the grievance of the complainant can be raised  before the appropriate court of law and not before this commission. We  do not  think  proper to go  into merit of this case.

Hence, the claim of the   complainant can not be accepted under the provisions of the C.P. Act. It is open to  complainant   ordinary remedy to approach proper forum.       

So  to meet the  ends of justice    the following order is passed.

 

ORDER.

            In resultant  the complaint petition stands  dismissed. The complainant  is free to approach the court of competent  having  its jurisdiction.   Parties are left to bear their own cost.  Accordingly the case  is closed.

                The time spent before consumer Commission  shall be set-off  by  the  authority, where the proceedings are taken up, as per provision of Section-14 of Limitation Act  held  as  reported  in SCC 1995(3) page No. 583  in the case of Laxmi Engineering works Vrs. P.S.G.Industrial Institute  where in   the Hon’ble Supreme Court   observed.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this             13^th.          Day of     August,  2021..

 

                .                                                                                                                                               President