DATE OF FILING: 7.11.2013.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 8.12.2015.
Miss S.L.Pattnaik, President:
Deficiency in service against the Opposite parties is the grievance of the complainant.
2. Brief fact of the case is that the complainant by submitting an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 sought information to the Public Information Officer (P.I.O.), Science College Kukudakhandai O.P.No.1 by his application dated 22.1.2013 sent through registered post which was returned to the complainant as the O.P.No.1 refused to receive the same on 24.1.2013 from the concerned postman. Thereafter on 29.1.2013 the complainant lodged his grievance before the President of G.B.Science College, Kukudakhandi , where the O.Ps are working as employees. The said president being the Minister of Revenue and D.M., Govt. of Odisha was pleased to issue instructions to all concerned officers to provide required information to the complainant. So the complainant again made an application for his cause on 16.4.2013 and the same was also returned by the O.P.No.1. Subsequently the O.P.No.2 was directed by the Director of Higher Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar on 25.3.2013 to provide the desired information to the complainant but he remained silent in that regard. In due course the PIO Sub collector’s office, Berhampur has asked the O.Ps to provide information to the complainant as the same was not available with his office vide letter No. 7491 dt.21.6.2013. The information having not been provided within prescribed period from the O.Ps, the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Information Commission, Odisha, Bhubaneswar on 13.4.2013 corresponding to complainant case No.584 / 2013 and the Honorable Commissioner through order dt. 31.7.2013 disposed the case and directed O.P.No.1 to supply information to the complainant interalia the under Secretary to Govt. of Odisha, Department of Higher Education also warned the O.P.No.1 on 13.8.2013 for strict compliance of the above order of the Hon’ble Information Commission. The O.P.No.1 sent a letter dt. 4.9.2013 to the complainant for his appearance before him on 6.9.2013 at 2.00P.m. where in the alleged letter carries some false information regarding disposal of letter on 14 and 23rd August 2013 addressing to the complainant. Thus the complainant got demoralized by the act of the O.P.No.1.The complainant submitted that the O.P.No.1 has never issued any letter to the complainant as alleged by him and the burden lies on him to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts and up to satisfaction of the Hon’ble court , so also the letter dated 6.9.2013 issued by the O.P.No.2 to the complainant does not have any legal footings. As per provisions under the RTI Act, 2005 the complainant is entitled to get information from the O.Ps as per his application dated 22.1.2013. On the other, the O.Ps deliberately did not supply information to the complainant under some pretext and thereby committed their deficiency in service. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant filed this complainant case before this forum with a prayer to pass an order for grant of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards harassment and mental agony .
3. Upon notice being served the Opposite parties entered its appearance through learned counsel and filed written version resisting the claim of the complainant on the ground of non-maintainability of the case before this Forum. However, in their version it is stated that the O.P.No.1 received a letter bearing No.8125 dated 7.3.2013 from Sri N.C. Das, under Secretary to Government-cum- Nodal P.I.O. Government of Odisha, Revenue and Disaster Management along with a photo copy of form A application dated 22.1.2013 of Sri Kailash Chandra Bisoyi. Accordingly the O.P.No.1 disposed the Form-A application which was received on 23.3.2013 of Sri Kailash Chandra Bisoyi on dated 16.4.2013. Sri Surya Narayan Patra, Minister of Revenue and Disaster Management vide his office letter No.447 dated 26.4.2013 has enclosed the representation of Kailash Chandra Bisoyi which was received by the O.P.No.2 on dated 30.4.2013. In reply to that letter the P.I.O. vide his letter No.15 dated 28.5.2013 complied and informed to Sri Surya Narayan Patra, Minister of Revenue and Disaster Management, Odisha. Then the D.H.E. (O) vide letter No.14547 dt.25.3.2013 has invited the consent of Sri Sesadev Sahu within 7 days of receipt of this letter. Sri Sesadev Sahu, lecturer in political Science, Principal Science colleges, Kukudakhandi submitted his due consent to the D.H.E. (o) dated 4.4.2013. The sub collector, Berhampur vide his letter No.7401 dt.19.6.2013 asked the information from the P.I.O Science College, Kukudakhandi in reference to the letter No.8125 dt.7.3.13 of Under Secretary to Govt. Revenue and Disaster Management. The P.I.O. Science college, Kukudakhandi vide his letter No.17/13 dated 12.8.2013 submitted his reply. The alleged Form-A application of Sri Bisoyi dated 22.1.2013 was disposed by P.I.O with due procedure as per R.T.I. Act 2005 and it was communicated to the applicant on dt.16.4.2013. Then the complainant preferred an appeal to the Information Commissioner, Odisha, 2nd Appellate authority ignoring first appellate Authority i.e. Principal, Science college, Kukudakhandi. The State Information Commissioner registered a case bearing No.584/13 and issued notice to the P.I.O. Science College, Kukudakhandi to appear on 31st July 2013 and disposed the case and directed the P.I.O. to dispose the Form-A application as per the R.T.I. Act, 2005. The Form “A” application Dt. 22.1.2013 of Sri Bisoyi was disposed of on dt. 6.9.2013 and communicated to the petitioner as well as to the State Chief Information Commissioner, Odisha, Bhubaneswar for his information vide his letter No. 24 dt.6.9.2013. The petitioner was terminated from his post of lecturer in History of Science College Kukudakhandi on dt.17.1.1997. Since then he has filed a number of cases, writ petition and suits in different forums and related records have been filed in different Forums by the college authority at different times and the matters are subjudice. Since this matter is beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum hence is not maintainable. Therefore prayed before this forum to dismiss the case with costs.
4. The complainant have filed certain documents in support of his case along with decisions of different courts which are placed in the case record as Annexure 1 to 16. The O.Ps have not filed any documents.
6. Opposite parties are absent on date of hearing. Heard the case from the side of the Complainant and perused the record. Now the question come of for our consideration is that weather a person seeking information under RTI Act can be said to be a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Act and secondly weather the jurisdiction of the consumer forum in such matters is barred under the provision of RTI Act.
7. On perusal, it is found that, Sri Kailash Chandra Bisoyi, Submitted an application under section 6(1) of the R.T.I Act, 2005 to the P.I.O, seeking information detail in the form “A” Application. Since the information has not been provided by the P.I.O, he preferred his grievance before different authorities and last preferred an appeal before the 2nd appellate authority without filling appeal before the 1st appellate authority provided as per the R.T.I Act. The R.T.I Act is a complete code in itself which provides adequate and effective remedy to person aggrieved in any decision/ in action / Act / Omission or misconduct of a P.I.O, not only this Act provides the provision for appeal to the 1st appellate authority under section 19(1) of R.T.I Act and a 2nd appeal U/S 19(3) of the Act, it also provides under Section 20 for imposition of penalty by the state information commission.
While deciding a complaint made under section 18 or an appeal preferred U/S 19 if the P.I.O without reasonable cause refused to receive an application seeking information, or had not furnished the information within the stipulated time or had malafidely denied such request and gave incorrect, incomplete or misleading information which was subject matter of request made to him, under the section 20(2) of the Act the State Information Commission has the power to recommend disciplinary action against such a P.I.O. It is a settled legal proposition that when a right is created by statute which provides an adequate and satisfactory remedy for enforcement of the said right, the person seeking to enforce such a right most necessarily take recourse provided in that act.
Section 23 of R.T.I Act, Which bars jurisdiction of courts to intervene in certain matter reads as under: “Bar of jurisdiction of courts – No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act”. Considering that since the said statute provided a special mechanism for enforcement of rights conferred by R.T.I Act, we are of the view that the consumer fora are “Courts” for the purpose of Section 23 of the R.T.I Act.
8. On this point we relied on the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision petition No. 3146 of 2012, judgment pronounced on 08/01/2015 hold that the person seeking information under the provision of the R.T.I Act can’t be said to be a consumer vis-à-vis the public authority concerned or CPIO/PIO nominated by it. The jurisdiction of the consumer fora to intervene in this matter arising out of the provision of the R.T.I Act is barred by necessary implication as also under the provisions of section 23 of the said Act.
9. Consequently no complaint by a person alleging deficiency in the services rendered by the CPIO/PIO is maintainable before a consumer forum. The complainant filed a decision (1994) 1 Supreme Court cases 243 which is not applicable in this case. The reliefs against R.T.I. Act do not considered to be a consumer. Hence this case is not maintainable.
In the light of the above decision of law we dismiss the case of the complainant. He is at liberty to file such complaint before any other Forum for redressal of his grievance and he may avail the benefit U/S 14(2) of the Limitation Act in the best interest of justice.
Order is pronounced in the open Forum today on 8th December 2015.
Copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
