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
Monday the 18th day of July, 2011
C.C.No.10 /2011
Between:
S.Baleeswara Reddy,
Advocate, H.No.64/43 B-11,
Fort Street, Near Saibaba Temple,
Kurnool-518 001. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Tahasildar,
Tahasildar’s Office,
D.No.6/255,
Orvakal Post & Mandalam,
Kurnool District-518 001.
2. The Revenue Divisional Officer,
Revenue Divisional Office,
D.No.41, 860 C, Kothapeta,
Kurnool City -518 001. …OPPOSITE PARTIES
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri S.Baleeswar Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Smt.D.S.Sai Leela, Government Pleader for opposite parties 1 and 2 for upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)
C.C. No. 10/2011
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the opposite parties:-
- To pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony;
(b) To pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation;
(c) To pay costs of the complaint;
And
- To grant such other relief as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant made an application under Right to Information Act 2005 to the opposite party No.1 on 08-11-2010 requesting to furnish the particulars of (1) The Mandal Revenue Officer/Tahasildar, Office Superintendent, Senior Assistants, Junior Assistants, Revenue Inspectors, Typists, Attenders, Night Watch Men etc., worked from 01-01-2001 to 01-10-2010 showing their names, Designation, Father’s name, present address, permanent address, salary drawn, period worked, etc. and also property statements of the present staff for the past three years. Particulars of Village Assistant/Village Revenue Officer of Sakunala Village Orvakal Mandal showing their names Designation, Father’s name, present address, permanent address, Salary drawn, period worked etc. from 01-01-2001 to 01-10-2010. (2) The Assigned lands relating to Sakunala Village. The particulars must contain the name of the assignee, father’s name, permanent address, present address, date of assignment, purpose of assignment copy of the assignment order, survey number, extent of the assigned land with boundaries, F.M.B. extract.
After sending the application, the complainant went to the office of the opposite party No.1 number of times and sought for information. On 06-12-2010 in R.C.C. 533/2010 dated 06-12-2010, opposite party No.1 informed that the particulars are being traced out in the office and that it will take time. On receipt of letter dated 06-12-2010 the complainant made an appeal to opposite party No.1. The complainant went to the office of opposite party No.2 number of times. The complainant was not furnished information sought by him. The action of the opposite parties amounts to gross negligence An account of the deficiency of service the complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.1 filed written version and the same is adopted by opposite party No.2. It is stated in the written version that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not a Consumer. There is no privity of the contract between the complainant and opposite parties. The application of the complainant seeking information under Right to Information Act 2005 was received on 09-11-2010. The said particulars have to be traced out in the office. The reply was given to the complainants stating that the particulars are being traced out in the office and that it would take time. After giving the said reply the opposite party No.1 and his staff were busy with the revision of photo electoral rolls – 2011. After that the entire staff was busy with Rachabanda Programme. After gathering the information the particulars are sent to the complainant through register post. The opposite party has applied for information several times. On all applications the complainant was furnished information within the time. The delay in furnishing information was due to elections and other works. The delay is not intentional. There is no deficiency of service. Hence 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. On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 Ex.B1 to B14 are marked and sworn affidavits of the opposite parties 1 and 2 are filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
(c) To what relief?
7. POINTS 1 & 2:- Admittedly the complainant sent an application Ex.A1 dated 08-11-2010 to opposite party No.1 seeking information under Right to Information Act 2005. Opposite party No.1 having received the said application addressed a letterEx.B14 dated 06-12-2010 stating that the particulars sought for under Ex.A1 application are being traced out in the office and that it would take time. It is the case of the opposite party No.1 that the information sought by the complainant under Ex.A1 could not be furnished with in the time as they were busy in revision of photo electoral rolls – 2011, Rachabanda Programme etc. The opposite party filed Ex.B13 showing the program schedule from 01-10-2010 to 05-01-2011. As seen from Ex.B13 it is very clear that the opposite party No.1 and staff were engaged in preparation of electoral rolls etc. According to the opposite party No.1 after securing information the complainant was furnished the same on 05-12-2011. Ex.B10 is the copy of the information furnished to the complainant by opposite party No.1.
8. Ex.A1 is the information sought by the complainant. In the written arguments filed by the complainant it is stated that subsequent to the filing of the present complaint opposite party No.1 furnished information as per Ex.B10 and that the information furnished by opposite party No.1 does not contain the full particulars asked by him. As seen from Ex.A1 copy of the application of the complainant it is very clear that the information sought by the complainant from opposite party No.1 is not certain. He requested to furnish the particulars of assigned land related to Sakunala Village. The complainant did not mention the names of the assignees whose particulars regarding the assignment of lands are required. As seen from the documents filed by the opposite party No.1 it is very clear that the complainant is regularly filling the applications under Right to Information Act seeking some information. The opposite party with in stipulated period gave a reply Ex.B14 stating that some more time is required to furnish information sought for. The complainant without waiting for some more time filed an appeal before opposite party No.2. The available information was furnished by opposite party No.1 to the complainant under Ex.B10 in response to the application of the complainant. No negligence is found on the part of opposite party No.1. The complainant has not stated in the complaint the purpose for which information is required. Merely because there was some delay in furnishing the information it cannot be said that the complainant is entitled for compensation.
9. The complainant also impleaded opposite party No.2 who is an appellant authority. Admittedly according to the complainant it is the opposite party No.1 who has to furnish information to him. Opposite party No.2 who is an appellant authority is not bound to furnish information to the complainant. Admittedly no application was made to opposite party No.2 seeking information under Right to Information Act. Opposite party No.2 is unnecessarily added by the complainant and made the opposite party No.2 incur some legal expenses. No deficiency of service is found on the part of the opposite parties.
10. In 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 18th day of July, 2011.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nil For the opposite parties : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Photo copy of letter addressed to the opposite party No.1 dated 08-11-2010.
Ex.A2. Photo copy of letter addressed to the complainant in
dated 06-12-2010 by the opposite party No.1.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of 1st appeal addressed to the opposite party
No.2 dated 14-12-2010.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of Courier receipt and Acknowledgement of the
opposite party No.2 dated 14-12-2010.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of letter addressed to opposite party No.1 dated 15-09-2010.
Ex.B2 Photo copy of letter endorsement issued by Tahasildar
Orvakal (M) dated 19-11-2010.
Ex.B3 Photo copy of letter addressed to opposite party No.1
dated 15-12-2010.
Ex.B4 Photo copy of letter dated 22-12-2010.
Ex.B5 Photo copy of letter addressed to opposite party No.1
dated 06-02-2011.
Ex.B6 Photo copy of letter dated 09-03-2011.
Ex.B7 Photo copy of letter addressed to opposite party No.1
dated 19-02-2011.
Ex.B8 Photo copy of letter dated 09-03-2011.
Ex.B9 Letter endorsement issued by Tahasildar Orvakal (M)
dated 05-02-2011.
Ex.B10 Photo copy of statement showing the salary particulars of
Sri.V.Neekanteswara Reddy, V.R.O. Sakunala of Orvakal (M) issued by Tahasildar dated 05-02-2011.
Ex.B11 Photo copy of On-sine statement of Sakunala Village of
Orvakal Mandal.
Ex.B12 Photo copy of postal receipt and acknowledgement.
Ex.B13 Photo copy of programme schedule issued by Tahasildar,
Orvakal Mandal dated 13-03-2011.
Ex.B14 Letter addressed to the complainant dated 06-12-2010 by
the opposite party No.1.
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 :
