LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Radhakrishna Atluri (convenor)     11 May 2012

Whether an rti applicant is a consumer?

Dear members,

In the latest order of NCCDRC dated 31-10-2011 in T. Pundalika Vs Revenue Dept. of Karnataka, it is declared that Rti applicant cannot claimed to be a consumer under consumer protection Act since there is remedy available for him to approach the Appellate authority under section 19 of the RTI act, 2005.

Quoting the above order, District Forum -1 of Hyderabad has dismissed my 11 cases on 8-2-2012.

I have filed an appeal in the State Commission. During arguments for admission of the appeals, I have referred the order of NCDRC 28-5-2009 in Dr.S.P. Tirumal Rao Vs Municipal Commission, Mysore where in it was declared that that RTI applicant is a consumer and told the commission that 2009 order was a reasoned order where as 2011 order is not a reasoned one. However the Hon’ble President of the State Commission has commented that whether it is a reasoned order or unreasoned order as per the law of the land , the latest order of higher forum is binding on the lower forum. However he granted me time till June 3rd to present any orders or rule of law contradicting his stand otherwise all my 11 appeals are going to be dismissed.

I request members help to guide me how to approach further.



Learning

 4 Replies

adv. rajeev ( rajoo ) (practicing advocate)     11 May 2012

High court order is binding on all.

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     11 May 2012

In my view, it is a settled principle of law that where there is a separate remedy under a special Act, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum is barred. The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a social welfare legislation and is a special law under Section 41 of the Indian Penal Code, as far as the penalties provided under Section 20 of the Act are concerned. The Consumer Forum, which have been constituted under the Consumer Protection Act are not expected to encroach upon the functions of the central public information officers or that of the state public information officer, designated by the Public Authority, under Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Rather, every such Central or State Public Information Officer shall deal with requests from persons seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the persons seeking such information. Rti complainant does not fall into the category of a “consumer” as defined in section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complaint filed by the Seekers of Information before the Consumer Fora is not maintainable.

JANAK RAJ VATSA (ADVOCATE)     11 May 2012

the latest  order of higher forum is  binding on the lower forum

Dorai Raj (NIL)     18 December 2012

National Commission has given two conflicting judgments.  The same National Commission observed in  Revision Petition No. 2916 of 2008 — NCDRC Bar Association (Regd.) vs. Davinder Malhotra & Ors.  as under: “if there are conflicting decisions rendered by the National Commission, the State Commission may decide the matter appropriately accepting one or the other judgement.”  The decision is reproduced below.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW  DELHI

 

REVISION  PETITION  NO.           2916          OF         2008

(From the order dated 4.4.08 in Appeal No.183/07 of the State Commission, Delhi)

 

NCDRC Bar Association (Regd.)                                                 Petitioner

Versus

Davinder Malhotra & Ors.                                                               Respondents

 

BEFORE :

                                HON’BLE  MR. JUSTICE  M.B. SHAH,  PRESIDENT

                                HON’BLE  MR. JUSTICE  K.S.  GUPTA,  MEMBER

                                HON’BLE  MR. JUSTICE  R.C. JAIN,  MEMBER

 

For the Petitioner                 :               Mr.R.P. Bhatt, Sr.Advocate with

                                                                                Mr.J.B. Mudgil, Advocate

18.07.2008

O R D E R

 

                Prima facie, it appears that the State Commission forgets that, in addition to the appellate and revisional jurisdiction under Section 24-B of the Consumer Protection Act, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission  (hereinafter referred to as the National Commission for brief) is having supervisory jurisdiction over consumer fora in the country.   This should be remembered by the State Commission before commenting that the orders passed by the National Commission are not binding to the Delhi State Commission.  Hence, unless there is a contrary judgement by the Apex Court, the State Commission is bound to follow the decision rendered by the National Commission.  Further, if there are conflicting decisions rendered by the National Commission, the State Commission may decide the matter appropriately accepting one or the other judgement. 

                Further, the State Commission must remember that constitution of Bench before the National Commission is absolutely within the jurisdiction of the President of the National Commission and the Benches are to be constituted on the basis of power conferred under Section 20 of the Act.  The State Commission has no business to interfere and criticize whether the constitution of Bench is justified or not.

                In view of the above, Notice to the parties returnable on 28th August 2008. 

Meantime, observations made by the State Commission in the impugned order are stayed because it may lead to indiscipline and insubordination with other consumer fora.

Registry is directed to call for the record of this matter from the State Commission.

 

……………………………….J.( M.B.  SHAH)

PRESIDENT

  ………………………………J.(K.S. GUPTA)

MEMBER

           ……………………………….J.(R.C.  JAIN)

MEMBER

/sra/  1  / Court-1

 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register