RTI applicant is not consumer

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in RP No 1975/2005 Dr. S. P.Thirumala Rao vs.Municipal Commissioner, Mysore City Municipal Corporation, Mysore held that failure to supplyinformation on an application under RTI amounts to deficiency of service. However, the Nationalcommission recently(on 09.10.2013) in RP No. 3396 OF 2013 betweenShri Kali Ram Vs. State PublicInformation Officer-Cum- Deputy Excise & Taxation, Gurgaon (East), Haryana held that RTI applicantdoes not fall under the definition to consumer so as to raise a consumer dispute.The National Commissionheld as follows:

“4. We do not locate substance in the arguments advanced by the petitioner. First of all, Sections 22 &23 of the RTI Act, 2005 are crystal clear, and the same are hereby reproduced:-

“22. Act to have overriding effect:- The provision of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anythinginconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for thetime being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. From this, itis beyond doubt that this Act, however, has on overriding effect in that the authorities under this Act maymake independent decisions about the question whether such disclosure or non-disclosure has anyoverriding public interest. Therefore, it may become necessary for the authorities to independently decidewhether disclosure of information which itself being an act done in public interest, overweighsthe public interest sought to be protected under those enactments.

23. Bar of Jurisdiction of Courts:- No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding inrespect of any order made this Act, and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way ofan appeal under this Act”.

Again, Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005, provides procedure for appeal.

5. This view stands emboldened by a recent judgment by a Bench consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice J. M.Malik and Hon’ble Dr. B. C. Gupta in the case of Smt. Tasleem Bint Hussain vs. The State PublicInformation Officer, revision petition No. 737 of 2013 decided on 1st March, 2013 and thejudgment rendered by a Bench headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, President in the caseofT.Pundalika Vs. Revenue Department (Service Division) Government of Karnataka, RP No. 4061 of2010, decided on 31.03.2011. In this case it was held:-

“Respondent, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been allowed byobserving thus:-

“At the outset, it is not in dispute that complainant had filed an application u/s 6 & 7 of the Right toInformation Act to the OP No.4. But complainant cannot be considered as a ‘consumer’ as defined under

Lawyersclubindia Article : RTI applicant is not consumer http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/print_this_page.asp?article_...

1 of 2 1/8/2014 11:28 AM

the C.P.Act since there is a remedy available for the complainant to approach the appellate authority u/s19 of the RTI Act, 2005”.

“We agree with the view taken by the fora below. Petitioner cannot be claimed to be a consumer underthe Consumer Protection Act. There is a remedy available for him to approach the Appellate Authorityunder Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. Dismissed.”

6. Again, this Commission also took the same view in RP 3276/2012, Pothireddipalli Sugunavati Vs.Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., decided on 14.01.2013.

Regards

Murali

Source : -

Lawyersclubindia Article : RTI applicant is not consumer http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/print_this_page.asp?article_...

2 of 2 1/8/2014 11:28 AM