State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bollineni Venkateswar Rao S/O.Bhaskar ... vs Vigneshwara Rao Agencies Rep. By Its ... on 13 November, 2009
FA BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH OF A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. R.P.No.19/2009 AGAINST I.A.No.63/2009 IN C.C.No.52/2008 DISTRICT FORUM, WARANGAL. Between: 1. Bollineni Venkateswar Rao S/o.Bhaskar Rao, aged 46 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.6-13, Chelpur (Veeraiahpally) Ghanpur Mandal, Warangal District. 2. Baluguri Swamy Rao, S/o.Venkat Rao, Aged 55 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o.Chelpur (Pappayapally) Ghanpur Mandal, Warangal District. Petitioners/ Complainants. And 1. Vigneshwara Rao Agencies Rep. by its proprietor Kukumudi Lachanna S/o.Venkat Narsaiah, Main Road, 6/260, Parkal, Waragal District. 2. Kukumudi Lachanna, S/o.Venkat Narsaiah, aged 39 years, Occ:Business, R/o.6-260, Parkal Village & Mandal, Warangal District. 3. The Proprietor Venkateswara Seeds, Gopalapuram Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District. Respondents/ (3rd respondent not necessary party) Opposite parties. Counsel for the Petitioners: Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam Counsel for the Respondents:served. QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
& SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE Oral Order (as per Sri K.Satyanand,Honble Member) *** This is a revision petition filed by the unsuccessful complainants/ petitioners seeking to summon officials of the Department of Agriculture from the office of Joint Director of Agriculture, Warangal to give evidence with reference to concerned records. The said petition was dismissed by the District Forum stating that the petitioners could have as well resorted to the provisions of Right to Information Act. It is needless to say that such ground is not tenable for the simple reason that the power of a court to summon other documents or witnesses is independent of the rights under Right to Information Act. However, reverting to the other merits of the case, the petition suffers from a very fundamental infirmity in the sense that the petitioner failed to specify the record the witnesses, who are public officers are supposed to produce as also the facts they are expected to speak to, if the Forum were to accede to the request of the petitioner. This vagueness vitiates the very petition itself. Moreover, when records are summoned from the public office, it is incumbent upon the petitioners to show that they had in fact tried to get the certified copies of the record in question and it is only after they were unsuccessful in that regard as proved that they get a justification to summon the public record. There is absolutely no whisper about such kind of exercise on their part. Apart from that, the petitioners are supposed to spell out as to which of these two options, namely, the production of the record or the deposition of the witnesses is essential for their case.
Strictly speaking, the authority summoned to produce the records cannot be called into the box automatically for giving any evidence. So there is absolutely no justification to call for public officers into the box much more so without specifying as to what is the record that they are expected to refresh their memory with while giving evidence.
For these two reasons, which cut at the very prayer of the petitioners either way, the petition deserves to be dismissed though the District Forum dismissed the petition for its own reasons set out in its order. Thus there are no merits in the revision petition and accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. However, it is always open to the revision petitioners to approach the District Forum with all the details as to the records they want to get summoned only after complying with the pre-requisite conditions and then move a fresh petition specifying whether they intend the summons to serve either for the production of the documents or appearance of the officers for evidence or both. This they shall do keeping the views expressed in the above discussion. The District Forum shall also entertain the petition in this regard keeping at the back of its mind the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.
Sd/-MEMBER.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.13-11-2009