S. Dorai Raj vs Divisional Personnel Officer And Nodal Public Information Officer, Southern Railway, Mudurai

PRESENT petition has been received by post on 28.12.2012. Thereafter, Petitioner has not appeared till date. However, petitioner had sent an application stating that he is unable to appear before this Commission and may be allowed to file its written submissions. Accordingly, petitioner has sent its written submissions by post which was received on 30.4.2013. We have gone through the record as well as written submissions sent by the petitioner.

PETITIONER /Complainant had filed a Consumer Complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal. Forum, Collectorate Campus, Coimbatore -18 (for short, ''District Forum'') alleging deficiency of service on the part of Respondent No. 1/opposite party, as it has failed to provide information sought by him in his application dated 7.3.2012, under Right to Information Act, 2005. District Forum, vide order dated 13.7.2012 dismissed the complaint observing as under: 6. Since the complainant has not pleaded any deficiency in service by the courier at Mettupalayam viz. the second opposite party, the complainant cannot file this complaint before this Forum at Coimbatore as the first opposite party against whom the relief is sought for having office at Madurai and the cause of action has also arisen at Madurai.

Hence, we hold that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. In view of the matter, the complaint is returned to the complainant with a direction to file it before the concerned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum having jurisdiction.

BEING aggrieved, petitioner filed First appeal No. 472 of 2012 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (for short, ''State Commission''). The State Commission, vide its impugned order dated 23.8.2012, dismissed the appeal and held: We have perused the materials, and on careful consideration of the prayer made, we are of the view that the order passed by the District Forum is well founded. In a similar matter in R.P. No. 4061/2010, date 31.3.2011, in T. Pundalika v. Revenue Department (Service Division), Government of Karnataka, the Hon''ble National Commission has held that the petitioner cannot be claimed to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, and further when there is a remedy available for him to approach the appellate authority under Section 19 of RTI Act, the prayer of the appellant cannot be entertained. The same facts are applicable to the case on our hand also. Under such circumstances the appeal deserves rejection.

VARIOUS judgments as referred by the petitioner in its written submissions, are not applicable to the facts of the present case at all. This Commission in B. Vasudeva Shetty v. The Chief Manager, Kota Cooperative Agricultural Bank Ltd., II (2013) CPJ 4B (CN), in Revision Petition No. 3636 of 2012, decided on 25.2.2013, held: 12. As per petitioner''s case, he has sought information under the RTI Act from the respondent for the first time in the year 2005. For the second time petitioner sought information in the year 2006. However, the complaint before the District Forum was filed by the petitioner on 20.5.2010. Thus, on the face of it, the complaint filed by the petitioner before the District Forum is hopelessly barred by limitation and it is liable to be dismissed on this short ground.

Even on merits, petitioner has no case. State Commission in the impugned order observed:

First of all it is the duty of the appellant to prove that, there existence any relationship of a ''Consumer'', and ''Service Provider'' with the respondent. So under the RTI Act, the appellant is entitled to see a required information for his benefit as the respondent is a public officer. If the required information or copies are not furnished then the remedy is available for him to approach the Appellate Authority under the RTI Act. First of all, the complaint filed before the DF in our view is not maintainable. No doubt that, in para 22 of the order, the DF has referred a decision reported in ILR 2010 Karnataka 3214 in that case the party involved was Bangalore International Air Port Ltd. v. Karnataka Information Commission and Others and rightly held that the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision will not come to the aid of the appellant/complainant.

In this connection we would like to refer to the decision rendered by the Hon''ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 1250/2010 in the case of S.N. Subramanya v. Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike wherein the Hon''ble National Commission has held that the party should always approach the Appellate Authority against the alleged action of the respondent/statutory authority. In the case of T. Pundalika v. Revenue Department (Service Division), Government of Karnataka, dated 21.3.2011 passed in Revision Petition No. 4061/2010 the National Commission held that, petitioner cannot be claimed to be a consumer under the C.P. Act. There is a remedy available for him to approach the Appellate Authority, under Section 19 of the RTI Act. Therefore, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, followed by this Commission in various cases, the DF is right in dismissing the complaint filed by the very appellant. Hence, we don''t see any perverse or incorrect findings recorded by the DF.

THE RTI Act is a Code in itself. It provides for remedies available under this Act to a person who has been denied any information. Since, petitioner has specific remedy available to him under the RTI Act and which he has already availed, the present consumer complaint does not lie under the Act.

THUS , no jurisdiction or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of power under Section 21(b) of the Act, since two Fora below have given cogent reasons in their order, which does not call for any interference nor they suffer from any infirmity or revisional exercise of jurisdiction. Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., II (2011) CPJ 19 (SC) : IV (2011) SLT 303 : 2011 (3) Scale 654, has observed: Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora.

HENCE , the present revision petition is not maintainable and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.