State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh vs The Authorised Person & Additional ... on 28 January, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. FA/519/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 28/03/2014 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/318/2013 of District South 24 Parganas DF, Alipore) 1. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh S/o Sri Jayram Singh, 95(331), Rai Bahadur Road, Kolkata-700 053, P.S. Behala, Dist. South 24 Pgs. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. The Authorisedc Person & Additional District Magistrate (General) South 24 Pgs. Regulated Market Committee, S.D. Chatterjee Road, Baruipur, Kolkata-700 144, P.S. Baruipur, Dist. South 24 Pgs. 2. The Appellate Authority, South 24 Pgs. Regulated Market Committee S.D. Chatterjee Road, Baruipur, Kolkata-700 144, P.S. Baruipur, Dist. South 24 Pgs. 3. The Secretary, South 24 Pgs. Regulated Market Committee S.D. Chatterjee Road, Baruipur, Kolkata-700 144, P.S. Baruipur, Dist. South 24 Pgs. 4. The Public Information Officer, South 24 Pgs. Regulated Market Committee S.D. Chatterjee Road, Baruipur, Kolkata-700 144, P.S. Baruipur, Dist. South 24 Pgs. ...........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: None appears For the Respondent: Ms. Pryanka Mukherjee, Advocate Ms. Priyanka Mukherjee, Advocate Ms. Priyanka Mukherjee, Advocate ORDER
28/01/15 HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT These three Appeals were heard analogously and the same are directed against the orders dated 02/01/14 in CC 414 of 2013 and CC 415 of 2013 and dated 28/03/14 in CC 318 of 2013 passed by the Learned District Forum, Barasat, North 24-Paraganas. The complaint cases were dismissed by the Learned District Forum.
The Complainant sought for some information from the OPs and being aggrieved by the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OPs filed Appeal before the Appellate Forum as per the provision of RTI Act.
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that since there is provision for Appeal under the RTI Act, the Learned District Forum was justified in dismissing the petition of complaint. It is contended that under such circumstances, the deficiency in service under the provisions of C. P. Act, 1986 would not arise.
None appeared for the Appellant.
In the case of RP 4061/2010 [T. Pundalika vs. Revenue Department (Service Division) Government of Karnataka] it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission that Petitioner cannot claim 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 19 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. It further appears from the impugned orders that the Complainant has approached the Appellate Authority and, under such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Learned District Forum was justified in dismissing the complaints.
The Appeals bearing nos.FA/130/2014, FA/131/2014 and FA/519/2014 are dismissed. Impugned orders are affirmed. This judgment will govern all the three Appeals. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KALIDAS MUKHERJEE] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. MRIDULA ROY] MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY] MEMBER