State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Parveen Pathania S/O. Shri Trilok Singh ... vs The Public Officer Directorate Of ... on 16 December, 2025
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
CHANDIGARH
FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/4/FA/250/2025
(Against the Order dated 3rd April 2025 in Complaint DC/44/CC/114/2024 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh district commission)
WITH
SC/4/IA/139/2025 (AMENDMENT OF CONDONATION OF DELAY )
PARVEEN PATHANIA S/o. shri trilok singh pathania
PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O HOUSE NO. 65, SECTOR 16 ,
PANCHKULAPANCHKULA,HARYANA.
.......Appellant(s)
Versus
THE PUBLIC OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF SCHOOL EDUCATION
PRESENT ADDRESS - ADDITIONAL DELUXE BUILDING, JAN MARG,
CHANDIGARH.CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.
.......Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MRS. PADMA PANDEY , PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. RAJESH KUMAR ARYA , MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
K.L. SAINI (Advocate)
DATED: 16/12/2025
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH (Additional Bench) Appeal No. : 250 of 2025 Date of Institution : 14.08.2025 Date of Decision : 16.12.2025 Parveen Pathania son of Sh. Tirlok Singh Pathania, resident of House no. 65, Sector 16, Panchkular-134109.
......Appellant/complainant Versus The Public Officer, Directorate of Education, Additional Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Jan Marg, Chandigarh- 160009.
.....Respondent/opposite party BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.
MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Present:-
Sh.Parveen Pathania, appellant in person alongwith Mrs.Mona Thakur, wife of the appellant.
Sh.Mannu Kukkar, Govt. Pleader for the respondent.
PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT Simplicity in public transactions is a hallmark of good governance, as it promotes transparency, efficiency, and accountability in the functioning of public authorities.
Our courts play a vital role in strengthening the rule of law and ensuring access to justice. By interpreting laws/Rules/Regulations fairly, protecting fundamental rights, and holding authorities accountable, the judiciary acts as a guardian of constitutional values. Through consistent and principled adjudication, the courts reinforce public trust in legal institutions and ensure that governance remains just, transparent, and accessible to all.
2. The appellant (complainant) has assailed the order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), vide which the consumer complaint bearing no.114 of 2024 filed by him was dismissed by it.
3. Before the District Commission, it was the case of the complainant that on 4.8.2022 he submitted an application (Annexure C-1) to the opposite party seeking certified/attested information relating to the rules and amendments governing promotion of ETT/JBT to TGT and TGT to PGT teachers; details of any court decisions affecting such rules; certified copies of documents from the service file of one Ritu Aggarwal concerning her promotion (including relevant rules, educational qualifications, permissions, and degrees), and certified copies of records and rules relating to the grant and subsequent stoppage of one-third casual leave. The complainant deposited the requisite fee of Rs.200/- vide Annexure C-2 with the opposite party and expressly stated readiness to pay any additional fee if required. Despite this, no certified copies or information was supplied to him by the opposite party. Ultimately, he filed consumer complaint before the District Commission, seeking following relief:-
"....i) To grant the compensation to the complainant as Rs. 10,00000/- on account of not providing the certified copy of documents as applied by the complainant, for which the complainant has already paid Rs. 200/- through Indian Postal for the service charges/charges in advance to the Opposite Party.
ii) To grant a compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- on account of deficiency in services, physical mental pain and suffering and for harassment and to pay a sum of Rs.
75000/- on account of legal expenses alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the respective date of the claim...."
4. The complaint was contested by the opposite party in the shape of filing written statement, wherein, it was admitted by it that the complainant had moved application dated 04.08.2022, after making the requisite fees of Rs.200/- seeking the said information/documents under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Annexure OP-1), but contended that no action was taken as the application was vague and sought personal records of Ms. Ritu Aggarwal, who had not consented to disclosure and had submitted a written objection (Annexure OP-2), attracting the exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. It was asserted that the non-supply of information was neither willful nor intentional, as the record was either not available or barred from disclosure, and that the complainant had wrongly invoked Section 76 of the Evidence Act despite the matter being governed by the RTI Act.
5. The contesting parties led evidence in support of their case.
6. The District Commission after hearing the contesting parties and on going through the material available on record dismissed the consumer complaint, by holding as under:-
"......At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant has been seeking personal information of the third person i.e. Ms. Ritu Aggarwal from the OP vide application Annexure C-1 and the OP had not provided the information being pertained to third person as the OP was requested by Ms. Ritu Aggarwal not supply her document to any third person as is also evident from Annexure OP/2 whereas the other official information was supplied to the complainant even with written version copies of which have already been supplied to the complainant, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the aforesaid act of OP amounts to deficiency in service or if the complaint being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed.
(ii) In the back drop of the foregoing admitted and disputed facts on record, it is clear that the entire case of the parties is revolving around the documentary evidence led by the parties us required to be scanned carefully.
(iii) Admittedly, the complainant approached the OP for supply of certified copies of the documents including the personal documents of Ms. Ritu Aggarwal who is serving as Lecturer and the copies of rules etc as detailed in Annexure C-1.
(iv) So far as the case of the complainant that the OP has not supplied the certified copies of the personal documents of third person is concerned, as it stands proved on record that Ms. Ritu Aggarwal has already requested the OP not to supply information regarding her service record or any document regarding her qualification to third person as is also evident from Annexure C2 and further even section 8(i)(h) of RTI Act 2005 does not permit supply the information which is personal information and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and also that the complainant has not been seeking information under RTI Act from the OP rather sought the information under section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, it is clear that OP has rightly not supplied the certified copies of the said documents Even as per Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act only public documents can be supplied and no private document as provided U/s 75 of the Indian Evidence Act can be supplied. So far as the other information is concerned, the OP has already supplied the same to the complainant being public document which is also available on the website of the OP.
Hence, we do not find any merit in the instant complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
5. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off..."
7. Hence this appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
8. Along with the appeal, the appellant has also filed Miscellaneous Application No. 139 of 2025 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 38 days (as per office 39 days) in filing the appeal.
9. We have heard the contesting parties on the application for condonation of delay and also in the main appeal and carefully gone through the material available on the record.
10. First coming to the Miscellaneous Application No. 139 of 2025 filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 38 days (as per office 39 days) in filing the appeal, it may be stated here that from the perusal of contents of this application, we are satisfied that the appellant has shown sufficient cause for condoning the said delay in filing this appeal. Hence, the delay of 38 days (as per office 39 days) in filing the present appeal stands condoned. Miscellaneous Application No. 139 of 2025 is accordingly allowed, and the appeal shall now be treated as having been filed within the period of limitation.
11. Now coming to the main appeal, it may be stated here that the core issue for determination is whether the respondent, being a public authority, was legally bound to supply the certified copies of documents sought by the appellant vide the application, Annexure C-1, under Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
12. Perusal of the application, Annexure C-1 reveals that the appellant sought following information/documents from the respondent;-
i) To provide the attested copies of the rule alongwith the amendments which has been made regarding the promotion of ETT/JBT TO TGT OR TGT TO PGT teachers.
ii) If any decision has been received from any court for amendment/changes in the rules made regarding promotion of teacher (ETT/JBT TO TGT OR TGT TO PGT teachers); provide a attested copy.
iii) Provide the following certified copies from the file of Ritu Aggarwal:-
a) Her name was not included in the initial lost prepared for promotion, according to which rule, her name has been incorporated /added lateron; provide a certified copy.
b) All the documents/degree presented on her behalf (mark sheet and degree of post graduation in Psychology, Marksheet and degree of Bachelor of Education, any experience and whatever other documents have been presented and in view of them, they were promoted. Provide a copy.
c) Provide an attested copy of the permission taken by her from the department for holding/obtaining the degree of post-graduation in Psychology; provide a certified copy.
d) Provide a certified copy of the Graduation mark sheet and degree presented by her;
iv) Provide the following documents regarding the file of one third casual leave for the teacher;
a) Provide a certified copy of the letter through which the leave was granted.
b) Provide an attested copy of the file/application for grant the one third casual leave (with the signature of the competent officer).
c) Provide an attested copy of the rule regarding which the one third casual leave was started to be given.
d) Provide an attested copy of the letter / document regarding which the one third leave was nullified/ineffective/stopped.
e) Give a certified copy of the rule, regarding which, the same has been stopped.
13. In our considered opinion the information/documents sought by the appellant from the respondent are public documents and not exempted under any provisions of the Evidence Act. Sections 74, 75 and 76 of the Indian Evidence Act (now mostly replaced by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) deal with public documents. Section 74, 75 defines public/private documents (acts/records of sovereign, official bodies, public officers, public records) and Section 76 mandates public officers to provide certified copies of these accessible documents on demand and payment of fees, certifying them as true copies, making them admissible as secondary evidence in court. Those sections are reproduced hereunder:-
"..74. Public documents.--The following documents are public documents: --
(1) Documents forming the acts, or records of the acts --
i) of the sovereign authority,
ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and
iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country;
(2) Public records kept [in any State] of private documents.
75. Private documents.--All other documents are private.
76. Certified copies of public documents.--Every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees there for, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.
Explanation--Any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty, is authorized to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section..."
14. It is an admitted position that the respondent is a Public Officer functioning under the Directorate of Education, Chandigarh, and is the lawful custodian of the records sought by the appellant. The documents demanded pertain to amendments in promotion rules, court decisions affecting such rules, records relating to grant and withdrawal of one-third casual leave, and service records concerning promotion of Ms. Ritu Aggarwal. All such records are maintained by the respondent in the discharge of official duties and form part of official files. Consequently, these records clearly fall within the definition of "public documents" as contemplated under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, irrespective of the fact that some of them relate to an individual employee.
15. The reasoning given by the District Commission that the documents concerning Ms. Ritu Aggarwal are private in nature is legally unsustainable. Once personal documents such as educational qualifications, permissions, and promotion records are submitted to and retained by a public authority for official purposes, they assume the character of public records of private documents under Section 74 of the Evidence Act. Such records, when kept in a public office, do not remain private documents in the strict sense and are amenable to disclosure in accordance with law.
16. Further, Section 76 of the Indian Evidence Act casts a mandatory duty upon every public officer having custody of a public document to furnish certified copies thereof to any person who has a right to inspect the same, upon payment of the prescribed fee. In the present case, the appellant deposited the requisite fee and expressly showed willingness to pay additional charges, if any.
17. The reliance placed by the respondent on Section 8(1)(j)/(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 and also discussed by the District Commission in the order impugned is misconceived, as the appellant did not invoke the provisions of the RTI Act but specifically sought certified copies under Section 76 of the Evidence Act. The applicability of the RTI Act, therefore, does not override or nullify the statutory obligation cast upon the respondent under the Evidence Act. Moreover, mere objection by someone or even the persons whose documents are reflecting as public documents, cannot defeat a statutory right expressly conferred by law, particularly when the documents sought are maintained as official records by a public Officer.
18. In view of the above discussion, this Commission holds that the documents sought by the appellant are public documents within the meaning of Sections 74 and 76 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the respondent, being their lawful custodian, is legally bound to supply certified copies thereof. The failure of the respondent to do so amounts to an unjustified denial of a statutory right. However, the District Commission fell into a grave error in dismissing the consumer complaint by holding to the contrary.
19. Now the question arises as to what relief the appellant is entitled to. At the outset, it may be noted that a perusal of the prayer clause of the main consumer complaint filed before the District Commission reveals that the appellant had sought compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for non-supply of certified copies of documents as applied for by the complainant, despite payment of Rs.200/- in advance towards service charges through Indian Post to the Opposite Party. In addition thereto, the appellant had also claimed Rs.2,50,000/- on account of deficiency in service, physical and mental agony, pain, suffering, and harassment, along with Rs.75,000/- towards litigation expenses, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the respective dates of claim.
It is pertinent to note that even during the pendency of the present appeal, the appellant has neither pressed for supply of the said documents nor sought any additional relief, and has confined his claim strictly to the reliefs sought in the original consumer complaint.
In these circumstances, this Commission is of the considered view that allowing the appeal and awarding appropriate compensation along with litigation expenses to the appellant would adequately meet the ends of justice.
20. Keeping in view the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the District Commission, being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, suffers from illegality and perversity, warranting interference of this Commission.
21. Resultantly, this appeal stands partly allowed and the order impugned is set aside. The consumer complaint stands partly allowed and respondent/opposite party is directed as under:-
i. To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the appellant/ complainant for causing him mental agony and physical harassment and also deficiency in providing service, by not providing him the documents in question.
ii. To pay cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.10,000/ to the appellant/complainant. iii. This order be complied with, by the respondent/opposite party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy thereof, failing which, thereafter, the awarded amounts shall carry interest @12% p.a. from the date of default, till realization.
22. Pending application(s) if any, stand disposed of, accordingly.
23. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge, forthwith.
24. The appeal file be consigned to Record Room, after completion and the record of the District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh, after annexing the additional documents, if any, submitted before this Commission in this appeal, be sent back immediately.
Pronounced 16.12.2025 Sd/-
[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Rg ..................
PADMA PANDEY PRESIDING MEMBER ..................J RAJESH KUMAR ARYA MEMBER