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 14^th day of March, 2012

C.C.No.150/2011

Between:

Madasu Maddi Reddy, S/o Padda Maddaiah @ Padda Maddilety,

H.No.9-35, Agriculturist, Siddanagattu Village, Veldurthy Mandal - 518 216, Kurnool District.

                                                    …Complainant

                                       -Vs-

The Thashildar,

Veldurthy,

H.No.14-16-1,

Veldurthy – 518 216,

Dhone Taluk,

Kurnool District.                                                  ...Opposite ParTy

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. G.Naga Lakshmi Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Sri G.Madhu Sudhana Reddy, Government Pleader 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.150/2011

1.     This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying that Honourable Tribunal be pleased to summon opposite party and punish him suitably.

2.    The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The  complainant applied to the opposite party for the following information under the Right to Information  Act, 2005, through his advocate.

a) Whether the land in Sy.Nos.804/A2, 951/4, 960/11 of Siddanugattu Village, is standing in the name of the father of the complainant Pedda Maddaiah @ Pedda Maddilety.  Whether it has been changed in the name of anybody else? If so on what date? Whether any enquiry conducted and the basis for such change in any body name.  The complainant paid the required fees under R.T.I. Act.  The opposite party received the said letter, but he did not comply the above request and failed to serve the complainant as prescribed under R.T.I. Act.  The complainant informed the same to the District Collector or State information officer also.  The opposite party did not respond.   There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite party filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant filed application, through his advocate with-regard to the Sy.Nos.804/A2,951/4,960/11 of Siddanagattu Village.  The opposite party supplied the required information which are available in the office, through post to the advocate for the complainant.  The complainant requested to supply 12 years information but the opposite party office is having 7 years information and the same was informed to the complainant’s advocate by reply letter dated 25-07-2011.  There is no deficiency or service on the part of opposite party.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     On behalf of the complainant sworn affidavit of complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite party sworn affidavit of opposite party is filed.

1. Both sides not filed written arguments.

1. Now the points that arise for considerations

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the     opposite party?

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

1. To what relief?

7.      POINTS i to iii :- It is admitted that the complainant applied under R.T.I. Act for information regarding  Sy.Nos.804/A2, 951/4, 960/11 of Siddanagattu Village.  It is the case of the complainant that he applied under R.T.I. Act and paid the prescribed fees seeking the information. Though the opposite party received the letter along with Challan on 29-06-2011, he did not comply the request of the complainant. The complaint informed the same to District Collector and State Information Officer but the opposite party did not respond. It is the case of the opposite party that after the receipt of application from the complainant the opposite party supplied the information to the complainant’s advocate which are available in the office and further stated that the complainant requested for 12 years information, but the opposite party office is having 7 years information and the same was also informed to the complainant.

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 14^th day of March, 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:- NILL

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               :