SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA vs Public Information Officer

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 16.07.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 191 and 201/2012 - Sanjay Kumar Mishra Vs. Public Information Officer (PIO) and Anr. by which, while dismissing both the appeals, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner filed complaint before District Forum for a direction to OP/respondent to provide him parawise information and grant of compensation which complaint was dismissed by District Forum and upheld by learned State Commission. During pendency of revision petition, Union of India filed application for impleadment of Union of India as a party and submitted that outcome of these proceedings will have a bearing on all public authorities and authorities under Consumer Protection Act have no jurisdiction to deal with the matters covered under Right to Information Act; hence, Union of India may be impleaded as a party. Petitioner filed reply and submitted that Union of India is neither necessary nor proper party in this matter and Union of India was not a party before District Forum or State Commission; hence, application be dismissed.

HEARD the petitioner in person and Counsel for the respondent and Union of India.

LEARNED Counsel for the Union of India submitted that a party can be impleaded at any stage of the proceedings and outcome of these proceedings will have bearing on all public authorities; hence, Union of India may be impleaded as a party. On the other hand, petitioner submitted that Union of India is neither necessary nor proper party; hence, application for impleadment may be dismissed. 5. It is admitted case that Union of India was not a party before District Forum and State Commission. District Forum has already dismissed complaint and State Commission has upheld order. During the pendency of the revision petition, the Union of India had filed application for impleadment as a party. Learned Counsel for the Union of India has placed reliance on (2010) 7 SCC 417 - Mumbai International Airport Private Limited Vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and others in which it was held that at any stage of the proceedings Court can add or delete any party under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. We agree to the proposition of law laid down by Hon ''ble Apex Court, but we do not find any ground for impleading Union of India as a party in these proceedings merely because outcome of these proceedings may have a bearing on all public authorities under Right to Information Act. Petitioner has alleged deficiency only against Public Information Officer and Chief Information Commissioner, Punjab and has not claimed any relief against Union of India. In such circumstances, Union of India cannot be impleaded as a party in this revision petition, but at the same time, as outcome of this litigation may have impact on other public authorities, it would be appropriate to allow Counsel of Union of India to address this Commission at the time of final arguments. Consequently, I.A. No. 206 of 2013 filed by the Union of India is dismissed with permission to address Bench at the time of final arguments.

LIST the matter for admission hearing on 04.10.2013.