State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dist. Project Officer vs Rejaun Sk. on 27 February, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. FA/734/2012 (Arisen out of Order Dated 20/06/2012 in Case No. CC/02/2012 of District Birbhum) 1. Dist. Project Officer (Prabir Basu), Birbhum at Suri, Post-Suri, Dist. Birbhum. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Rejaun Sk. S/o Late Hazi Wazed Sk. Vill. - Kandha, P.O.-B. Nandigram, P.S. - Murarai, Dist. Birbhum, Pin - 731 219. 2. S.I. Paikar Circle Office Murarai - II, Birbhum, P.S. - Murarai, Dist. Birbhum, Pin - 731 219. 3. Clerk (Debi Prasad Mukherjee) II, Paikar Circle Office, Murarai-II, P.S. - Murarai, Dist. Birbhum, Pin - 731 219. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY MEMBER HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY MEMBER For the Appellant: Mr. Guru Saday De, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. S.K.Basu, Advocate ORDER 27.02.2015. MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER.
The instant appeal is directed against the order being No. 12 dated 20.06.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Birbhum in Complaint Case being No. CC/02/O/2012 holding the O.Ps liable jointly and severally for not supplying of information directing the O.Ps to supply the information to the Complainant within one month from the date of the order by any means, failing which the Complainant would be at liberty to take recourse as per law and procedure.
Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred the instant appeal on the ground, inter alia, that the Ld. District Forum ought to have considered that the Forum was not the appellate body of the State Public Information Officer and as such, the said application filed by the Complainant - Respondent before the Ld. District Forum was liable to be rejected for lack of jurisdiction.
The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that he filed petitions dated 12.11.2011 and 15.11.2011 respectively to the O.P. No. 1 (Appellant No. 1 herein) and O.P. No. 3 (Respondent No. 2 herein) under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for getting information in respect of the appointment of para teacher for which his daughter-in-law was a candidate at Kandha Primary School under Murarai Police Station, District - Birbhum, but he has got no reply from the end of the O.Ps. Hence, he filed the petition of complaint before the Ld. District Forum praying for direction upon the O.Ps to provide information as sought for.
Having heard both sides the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned order.
In course of hearing of the appeal Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that the Ld. District Forum is not the appropriate authority to entertain the case on the basis of an application filed under Section 6(1) of the RIT Act since there are separate provisions for appeal in respect of the said matter.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent - Complainant has submitted that the applications under the RTI Act have been filed seeking the information of appointment of para teacher and, as the required information has not been furnished by the concerned Authority, the petition of complaint has been filed. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant - Respondent has further submitted that Section 10 of the RTI Act does not bar the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum.
Having heard submissions and on perusal of the materials on record it appears that the Respondent - Complainant sought for some information from the O.P. - Appellants which he did not receive and being aggrieved by the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps filed a petition of complaint before the Ld. District Forum. Now, the moot point is whether or not the petition of complaint filed by the Complainant - Respondent alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps for not furnishing the information sought to for by the Complainant under the RTI Act is entertainable before the Ld. District Forum. To determine the said point we rely on the decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in RP 4061/2010 [T. Pundalika vs. Revenue Department (Service Division) Government of Karnataka] wherein it has been held that petitioner cannot be claimed to be a consumer under the C. P. Act 1986 as there is a remedy available for him to approach the appellate authority under the provision of Section 29 of the RTI Act. In the decision reported in 2013 (4) CPR 559 (NC) [Sri Kali Ram vs. State Public Information Officer cum Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner] it has been held that the order passed under RTI Act, 2005 cannot be subject matter of consumer dispute. In another decision reported in I (2014) CPJ 444 (NC) [S. Dorai Raj vs. Divisional Forest Officer & Nodal Public Inspection Officer, Southern Railway, Madurai & Anr.] it has been held that in view of the remedy available under RTI Act the petition of complaint is not maintainable.
In such view of the matter, we are of opinion that the Ld. District Forum was not justified in passing the impugned order allowing the petition of complaint.
In the result, the appeal succeeds.
Hence, ORDERED, that the appeal is allowed on contest without cost. The impugned order is set aside. The petition of complaint is dismissed. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY] MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY] MEMBER