This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      04-02-11 in the presence of complainant and opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

PER SMT.T.SUNEETHA, LADY MEMBER:

                This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.20,180/- i.e., Rs.50/- towards value of postal order, Rs.20,000/- towards compensation, Rs.130/- towards costs.

2.      The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:

                The complainant submits that the opposite party is Telugu monthly magazine “Viniyoga Hakku” run by Mr.D.V.Lakshmi Narayana as Proprietor cum Editor, which is duly registered with Registrar of News Papers India, New Delhi with No.67332/97, who is resident of 4/14 Brodiepet, Guntur and getting Postal Concession under register No.GTR/22/2009-11 and also enjoying Bus Accreditation No.660 of District Public Relation Officer, Guntur and submitting yearly returns and also drawing consumer welfare funds from Government of AP, as such the magazine comes under RTI Act, 2005.  The opposite party publishes articles accusing Government Officials, Public Officers and Judicial Officials and innocent people at large without having any valid source of information or data.  With that help he black mail the officers and public and squeeze money.  He also published several news items showing the complainant as criminal, blackmailer and cheater and defamed in public and the same are denied by complainant and requested him to supply the source of information  for publication of said news under RTI Act along with fee of Rs.50/- by way of postal order bearing No.9G384701 dt.02-09-10. The opposite party miserably failed in supplying information required even though received postal order of Rs.50/-.  Being the Proprietor-cum-Editor, the opposite party is liable to pay claim amount but refused to pay the same.  Thus there is lot of deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.  Hence, the complaint.        

3.      The opposite party filed its version denying the allegations made in the complaint, which is in brief as follows:

                Vinuyoga Hakku magazine is covering news about the consumer’s information.  The said magazine is distributed in an around Guntur and other districts in AP for free of cost.  The magazine is not a commercial one and as such we are not publishing commercial advertisements.  At the time of inception of magazine, the rate was fixed at Rs.1/- but it was distributing for free of cost and also requested the Registrar of News Paper of India to change the same in certificate.  On the magazine’s front page at the price column the rate printed as free.  In the annual reports the said fact was mentioned. 

                The complainant is not a subscriber to the magazine.  He does not come under the purview of consumer as per section 2(d) and (ii) of the Act. 

                The complainant has sent Rs.50/- to opposite party with a request to provide certain documents/information.  The complainant has requested to cause production of certain information which is unconnected, unavailable and not to be disclosed material and hence the same was rejected along with the postal order sent by him. 

As per section 8(I) J of RTI Act:

                If any person desires any information it must be for public purpose, the complainant has utterly failed to explain for what purpose he desires the information. Moreover under

Section 6 of RTI Act: Complainant has to approach Central/State Public Information Officer. Here the complainant has sent the application to the individual which is not maintainable and untenable. 

                As per the decision of National Forum it was held that if there is any deficiency in quality, or printing flaws, those can be questioned by the subscriber or Advertisers.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its judgment in WP.422/1994 (ALD, Volume-1-1995(1) categorically stated that as per the public documents the print media can publish about the persons and their criminal background along with comments.  It is mentioned in the magazine/published the items about the complainant as per the judgments of Hon’ble Lokayukta delivered in C.No.590/07, 1105/07, 939/08, 1155/02, 1456/97, 1322/97 and 140/95.  So the news items covered in the magazine are purely basing on the judgments of Lokayukta and other documents. Since the complainant made false allegations against the opposite party, this opposite party filed CFR 1956/10 against the complainant before Hon’ble Spl.Mobile Magistrate, Guntur which is pending. 

                The Vinuyoga Hakku magazine is run purely by individual person it was declared by the Hon’ble Lokayukta in CC No.1105, 939/07 and there are no public or Government funds either directly or indirectly.  There is no control by Government over the magazine, there are no shares to the Government also this was clearly reveals in Registrar of News Papers of India Certificate.  In 2004 on the occasion of World Consumers Rights Day (March 15), Civil Supplies Department Guntur paid Rs.4,030/- for the cost of special issue only. 

                The complainant was always greedy for money and threatening the persons who are having reputations/relations in the public. The observation of Hon’ble Lokayukta against complainant in complaint No.1155/2002/B-2 branding him as known delinquent as follows:

                “It is seen from the office note put-up by the Registry that earlier the complainant filed complaint No.140/95, 1322 and 1456/97 against the same public servant and others with similar allegations were dismissed by this institution holding that the complainant is in the habit of fling frivolous petitions and complaints on a speculative basis and with a view to blackmail the public servants”

                The complainant also having grudge against the opposite party, in that process he filed a complaint C.No.938/08 before the Lokayukta.  Their lordship rejected the matter and very clearly commented that “apparently vindictive against the individual”.  Hence it is prayed to reject the complaint. 

4.             The complainant filed affidavit and written augments and documents, which are marked as Ex.A1 to A10.  The opposite party filed affidavit and documents, which are marked as Ex.B1 to B10.

5.             The opposite party filed writ petition No.27298/2010 under Article 226 of Constitution of India in the High Court of Judicature in the presence of Hon’ble Justice Ghulam Mohammed and Hon’ble Justice P.Swaroop Reddy seeking issue of writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to CC 277/2010 on the file of 1^st respondent i.e., District Consumer Forum, Guntur represented by its Hon’ble President and quash the same as illegal and without jurisdiction and to pass necessary order. 

6.             The petition was heard by the Hon’ble High Court and dismissal order was passed on 09-09-2010, which is as follows:

                   “It is needless to mention that the writ petition is premature, as the petitioner can participate in the proceedings before the Consumer Forum and raise his objections with regard to jurisdiction and taking cognizance of the complaint by it and thereafter, he can approach this court.

                   Therefore, the Consumer Forum is directed to decide the issues raised by the petitioner and dispose of the matter in accordance with law.  Thereafter, the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court. 

                   With the above directions, the writ petition is dismissed.  No order as to costs.”

7.      Now the points for consideration are

1. Whether the opposite party is public authority as defined under Right to Information Act?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
3. If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?  

8.      POINTS 1 to 3

                The complainant on payment of postal order for Rs.50/- sought information from opposite party under Right to Information Act.  This is one of the acts that the Consumer Forum deals with.

9.             The complainant has asked the source of information basing on which the opposite party published article in his paper against him along with some other details regarding monthly magazine called ‘Viniyoga Hakku’ run by opposite party through a letter         dt.01-09-10 under RTI Act. 

10.           “The Right to Information Act, 2005, Act 22 of 2005 is an Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”  

11.           The complainant emphasized on Section 2(h) which was says “public authority means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted …

        (d) by notification issued or under made by the appropriate                   Government; and includes any-

                (ii) non-government organization substantially financed;

Directly or indirectly by fund provided by the appropriate Government;”

12.           As per the above section the public authority shall be substantially financed directly or indirectly by the government.  To establish the fact that the opposite party is financed by the government, the complainant alleged about the amounts given to opposite party by District Supplies Officer on various occasions, which are drawn from Ex.A4 as below:

1. 2005 – On the eve of National Consumers Day RC No.1340/2005 S11 dt.15-02-06 Rs.430/-.
2. 2006 – On the eve of World Consumers Day RC No.1340/2005  S11 dt.22-03-06 Rs.1500/-
3. 2006 -  On the even of National Consumers Day RC No.1404/2006 S10, dt.08-02-06 Rs.2140/-
4. To act as Coordinating agency in consumers club RC No.1228/2003 S10, dt.07-02-07 Rs.13,200/-.
5. On the eve of consumers day RC No.965/07 S10 dt.16-07-07 Rs.750/-.

13.           The opposite party to undo the above allegation has filed letter issued by the Addl. Supplies Officer on behalf of District Supplies Officer, which reveals that the magazine Viniyoga Hakku editor Mr.D.V.Lakshmi Narayana is given a cheque bearing No.221960 on     05-03-04 for an amount of Rs.4030/- to meet the expenses of special issue on the eve of world and national consumer’s day.  But that amount was not given to the maintenance of magazine directly or indirectly.  Further emphasized that their office had no involvement or participation in running of the magazine.

14.           The allegation of the complainant that the bus accreditation is given to opposite party shall not be considered as financial assistance because it is a privilege given to media correspondents in general.  It is issued to the correspondents of various magazines all over the District.

15.           The postal concession is also given to the magazine since the opposite party is distributing his paper at free of cost to the public. 

16.           The magazine is not substantially financed it is only occasionally financed.  The given funds are purposive and not for the functioning of the magazine. The magazine is neither controlled nor substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government. Apart from this section 6(i) of the RTI Act reveals:

1. A person who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means in English, or Hindi or in the official language of the area in which the application is being made, accompanying such fee as may be prescribed, to—
   1. the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, of the concerned public authority;
   2. the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be   

17.              According to the above section any one who needs information shall seek the help of Information Officer. Therefore, the complainant ought to have approached PIO for the information required. 

18.           The complainant relied on the following citations:

1. Appeal No.11/9/2005-CIC - Order dt.01-03-06 – In the case of Mukul Mittal Rep. Mittal Contracts Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal Vs. CPIO, IRCON International Ltd., New Delhi. 

                              Applicant seeking inspection of certain files - CPIO stated that decision has to be taken on the issue “whether IRCON is a public authority or not? Commission expressed its view that the whole exercise was a crude attempt on the part of the IRCON to mislead the commission – On its own admission, 99.7% of the share capital of the company is owned by Central Government.

1. Justice KL Manjunath held that University comes under definition of Article 12 of the Constitution and the University must conform to the principles of fundamental rights – The university is an authority defined u/s.2(c) of the RTI Act – HC held that all offices of State Government, including KPSC, all local authorities, corporate, trust, society or any organization funded by the State Government are public authorities under the Act.

1. Application No.CIC/WB/A/2006/00011 – Order dt.16-03-06 – Section 19 – In the case of Er Sarabjit Roy Vs DERC – CIC held that DISCOMs are public authorities under

                 The RTI Act because over 40% of share of DISCOMs is  

        vested with the Delhi Government.

1. Appeal No.ICPB/A-8/CIC/2006 – Order dt.22-03-06 – Sections 6&18 – In the case of Navneet Kaur Vs. CPIO, Dept. of Information Technology as well as Electronics & Computer Software Export Promotion Council (ESC).

               CPIO, ESC stated that ESC is a non-governmental organization and not funded by Government and therefore RTI Act is not applicable to ESC – CIC looked into the accounts of ESC and out of income of Rs.11.8 crores for the year 2004-05, Rs.6.8 is due to grants from Department of Commerce and Department of Information Technology.  Therefore RTI Act is applicable to ESC. 

1. Appeal No.ICPB/A-11/CIC/2006 – Order dated April 3, 2006 – In the case of Shri Kanwal Jit Singh Vs. CPIO Quality Council of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry.

(6)  Appeal Nos.CIC/WB/A/2006/00339&340 dt.20-03-06&03-04-06 – R.K.Gupta Vs. BARC, Mumbai – Whether BARC Family Relief Scheme. CIC held that this organization falls within the definition of public authority u/s.2(h)(i).  Even though this body is neither owned nor substantially financed by Government, it is through its Managing Committee controlled by the BARC which itself is a public authority.  Its funding comes entirely through Government employees.

(7) Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2006/00015 – Order dt.01-03-06 –      

       Section 7(2) & 18(b) – Yogesh Sharma Vs. CPIO, Survey of India, Dehra Dun – Application forwarded one

       CPIO to another.  Commission held that CPIO could have taken action when copy of receipt was sent to him. 

(8) Complaint No.10/1/2005-CIC- Order dt.25-02-06 – In the case of Er.Sarbajit Roy Vs. CPIO, Delhi Development Authority:

                The Acts and Rules relevant to the functioning of the public authority may be published on the website as expeditiously as possible and in any case within 30 days.  

(9) Complaint No.ICPB/C1/CIC/2006 – Order dt.06-03-06 –                     P.Rajan  Vs. CPIO

         RTI Act came into effect only in 2005 and the period of 20   years cannot be applied retrospectively.  CIC held that if the information is available with the Ministry, the same may be supplied.

19.           The citations referred by the complainant in support of his complaint are not relevant and applicable to the present case.  In the citations/cases, the financial assistance involved is at high level and drew public interest at large and whereas the opposite party herein is not substantially financed.  Few other citations are regarding the cases dealt with the administrative aspects of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), which are also not relevant to the facts of the present case.     

20.           The complainant shall have to file suit for damages in other courts but not in the Consumer Forum for the news published against him. 

21.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the opposite party has not committed any deficiency of service.  Hence, the complaint is dismissed.

                In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.   

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 17^th day of March, 2011.

          MEMBER                               MEMBER                            PRESIDENT          

   APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

No oral evidence is adduced on either side

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For Opposite party:     

                                                                                         PRESIDENT