STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF DEPUTY EXCISE AND TAXATION COMMISSIONER, GURGAON (EAST) Vs. KALI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order dated 28.3.2013 passed by District Consumer Forum, Gurgaon whereby complaint No. 540/ 2011 filed by complainant (respondent herein) against the appellant -opposite party was accepted in the following terms:

(2.) THE brief facts of the present case are that complainant was working as a Clerk at Check Post Sikanderpur, Gurgaon under the opposite party. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Gurgaon recorded Adverse Remarks in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1989 -90 which was conveyed to him on 29.5.1990. Complainant made a representation against the said remarks on 9.8.1990 but the same was rejected by the Competent Authority vide letter dated 6.1.2003 on the ground that as per the latest instructions of the Government dated 14.8.1987 and 30.4.1987, the same was time barred. According to the complainant no such instructions had ever been received in their office nor it was conveyed to the staff. Complainant sought information about the same vide application dated 24.5.2010 on payment of Rs. 85 under Right to Information Act, 2005 as detailed in para 4 of the complaint. The grievance of the complainant before the District Consumer Forum was that the opposite party had not supplied the information within the prescribed period of 30 days and the same was supplied with 28 days delay vide Memo No. 441/RTI dated 21.7.2010 and the information supplied was also incomplete. Complainant further alleged that the opposite party did not supply the complete information despite repeated requests oral as well as in writing. Alleging it a case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Consumenr Forum by filing complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to supply complete information and to pay Rs. 2.00 lacs for harassment and monetary loss.

(3.) UPON notice, the opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written statement. It was stated that the complaint filed by the complainant was not maintainable as the complainant had filed appeal against the order of the opposite party and the same was dismissed by the competent authority and thus the complainant has misused the process of law by filing complaint on false and frivolous grounds. Denying all other allegations of the complainant, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.