The only remedy helpful for an RTI applicant is furnishing of information by PIO as disciplinary proceedings and penalty to PIO are not any reliefs to applicants. Information Commissions can not direct PIO to furnish information. As RTI is a fundamental right, applicant has a choice to choose where petitions have to be filed for his relief.
Against this background, Consumer Forums were not entertaining any applications and rejecting the same at admission stage itself and mere mentioning of RTI Act is irritating to Forums and Commissions. The following is judgment given by one of State Commission (Consumer).
Can any expert furnish opinion on these rulings given by SCRDC (with citations if possible)
“ The contention that the Consumer Protection Act overrides RTI Act can not be upheld. In the light of sec.22 of RTI Act, it cannot be said that the provisions of CP Act overrides the RTI ACT.
In this context Sec.23 of RTI Act on Bar of jurisdiction of Courts is also worth to be mentioned.
When the information to be furnished byy the authorities under the RTI Act can not be termed as “Service” as defined under the CP Act, non furnishing of information cannot be termed as defieciency in service. When consistely the Courts opined that the information sought under the RTI Act is not a service, no complaint could be filed on the ground that it amounts to deficiency in service. The Consumer Protection Act has limited scope, in the sense it would adjudicate the disputes between the consumers ‘vis-à-vis’ service providers and others. When the Authorities under RTI Act are not considered as service providers no complaint could be filed against them under CP Act. When the courts have consistently held that the petitioners under the RTI Act are not consumers, the complainant can not circumvent these decisions and file complaints.”
