Case nº Revision Petition No. 2846 of 2013 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, December 16, 2013 (case Public Information Officer, Urban Improvement Trust Vs Tarun Agarwal)
| Judge | For Appellant: Mr. Amit Kuri and Mr. Manish, Advocates |
| President | J.M. Malik, J. (Presiding Member) and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member |
| Resolution Date | December 16, 2013 |
| Issuing Organization | National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
J.M. Malik, J. (Presiding Member)
-
The key question swirls around the controversy, whether there lies a rub for the Consumer Fora to entertain the case pertaining to Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short' RTI Act'). Both the Fora below have come to the conclusion that, although, they have no powers, yet they have granted Rs. 1,000, as compensation to the complainant. Tarun Agarwal, the complainant/respondent sought RTI report from the Public Information Officer, Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer, petitioner/OP. Proper application was moved along with statutory fee in the sum of Rs. 10, through Postal Order. However, the Petitioner/OP did not do the needful within the stipulated period of 30 days. Thereafter, after three months, incomplete information was provided. But, information in respect of Point Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 was not provided. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum, though, admitted that the remedies were available and there is no provision for compensation for deficit services and for such matters, complaint is not maintainable. The complainant had asked for a compensation of Rs. 50,000. The same was denied but, strangely, granted a normal amount of compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,000 to the complainant.
-
Aggrieved by that order. First Appeal was filed by Petitioner/OP, before the State Commission. There was delay of 150 days. It was explained that the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, which was ultimately dismissed. Consequently, the delay occurred.
-
It appears that the State Commission had not condoned the delay. The State Commission passed the following Order:
Having considered the entire facts and circumstances, in our opinion, on the face of it, there appears to be sheer misuse of public money which, in no manner, can be appreciated by any Court of law. For a meager amount of Rs. 1,000 the appellants have first approached the High Court and then has come to this Commission.
Without making any further observation on merits, we deem it proper to dismiss the appeal on delay as also on merits and further direct the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000 (Twenty five thousand) in the Consumer Welfare Fund, within thirty days.
-
Thereafter, this revision petition has been filed. Again, there was delay of 19 days. In the application for condonation of delay, it was explained, in paras (iv), (v), (vi) and (vii), as under:
(iv)...
To continue reading
Request your trial