GOEL S PAL Vs. INCHARGE COPYING AGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, who was complainant before the District Forum, applied to the Copying Agency for a certified copy of certain documents in the prescribed proforma after affixing 50p. Court fee stamp. The application was registered against serial number 2414 dated 4.2.91. The complainant agreed to pay the balance charges at the time of the delivery of the certified copies in accordance with the rules, instructions and the practice being followed. The complainant was given date after date to collect the certified copies. A Photostat copy of the sheet on which dates starting from 12.2.91 upto 21.7.93 were given has been filed but the copies were not supplied. It was during the pendency of the complainant's application that on 25.2.93 the present complaint was filed before the District Forum-I.

(2.) None appeared on behalf of the opposite party. The complainant filed his affidavit. District Forum-I, however, dismissed the complaint by the impugned order on the ground: (i ). The complainant had already moved an application under Sec.197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for permission to prosecute the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for illegally directing the Copying Agency orally not to issue the certified copies. The complainant having made the said application for permission, the District Forum was not "inclined" to give him relief in the present complaint. (ii ). The complainant had affixed Court fee of only 50 paise and accordingly the complainant could not be Held to have hired the services of the opposite party on payment of consideration.

(3.) Aggrieved by the order the complainant has preferred this appeal. None appeared for the respondent inspite of service. We have heard the appellant and have perused the record.