SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA Vs. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in Revision Petition No.3146 of 2010, namely Shri Sanjay Kumar Mishra submitted an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'RTI Act') to the Public Information Officer (PIO), seeking information detailed in paras 1 and 4 of the application. The information having not been provided within the prescribed period of thirty days, he preferred an appeal before the State Information Commission. The said appeal was dismissed on 06.04.2011. Thereupon, he filed a complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), claiming to be a consumer within the meaning of the said Act and seeking compensation from the opposite parties in the complaint i.e. the Public Information Officer of the Central Information Commission, Punjab and the Chief Information Commissioner of the said Information Commission. The complaint was opposed by the opposite parties; inter-alia on the ground that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint arising out of the orders passed under the RTI Act. The District Forum took the view that it had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint but dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was no deficiency in the services rendered to the complainant. Being aggrieved from the finding that it had the jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint the opposite parties in the complaint preferred an appeal before the Stat Commission. Being aggrieved from dismissal of his complaint, the complainant also preferred a separate appeal challenging the order passed by the District Forum. The State Commission took the view that the District Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain complaints of the aforesaid nature and accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant, while allowing the appeal filed by the opposite parties. Being aggrieved from the view taken by the State Commission, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the aforesaid revision petition.

(2.) In revision petition No.2028/2012, the complainant Shri Ajay Pandey and one Shri Ram Kumar Gupta submitted applications, seeking certain information from the Bar Council of U.P. The said information having not been provided, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, seeking compensation from the Bar Council. The District Forum awarded compensation amounting to Rs.25,000/- to the complainant. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, Bar Council of UP preferred an appeal before the State Commission of UP at Lucknow. The said appeal having been dismissed, the Bar Council of UP is before us by way of this revision petition.

(3.) The complainant in revision petition No. 362 of 2013 sought some information from the opposite party, Bar Council of India. The information however, was supplied only partly. Being aggrieved on account of the complete information not being supplied to him, the complainant preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. Thereafter, he submitted another application to the Bar Council of India, seeking information under RTI Act. The information having not been supplied, he approached the District Forum by way of a complaint. The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainant, the order passed by it was challenged by the Bar Council of India before the concerned State Commission. The said appeal having been dismissed, Bar Council of India is before us by way of this revision petition.