SHONKH TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Vs. TUSHAR MANDLEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and also the Respondents. The factual matrix for adjudication are quite short. The Complainant bought second -hand Honda Activa on 28.2.2007 from one D.K. Mishra and submitted transfer form duly filled to the Regional Transport Officer, Nagpur in terms of provisions of CMV Rules 1989 and also Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The grouse of the respondent had been that despite submission of all the relevant documents like registration certificate, copy of insurance certificate, etc. along with necessary fee, authority concerned failed to note transfer of ownership of vehicle in their records and issue registration certificate for delivery to the respondent and directed them to obtain optical smart card (Form 23 -A) on payment of Rs. 350 to the smart card operator, which was unfair practice. Contentions raised on behalf of the respondent was that in cases where vehicles have already been registered and registration certificate had been issued, it was not permissible for the transport authorities to insist for payment of Rs. 350 for obtaining a smart card in Form 23 -A. Alleging unfair trade practice by OP Nos. 4 and 5 in connivance with OP Nos. 1 to 3 and also with host of other accusations, a consumer complaint was filed with the District Forum. However, during pendency of the proceedings, respondent/complainant moved District Forum to direct OP -2 to furnish copy of contract entered into between Government of Maharashtra and Shonk Technologies Ltd., the Petitioner. That application was allowed by Forum on 28.7.2008 directing OP -2 to produce the agreement in question. Time was sought by OPs -1 to 3 to produce said document. The matter became debatable after an application was moved by OPs -1 to 3 on 19.9.2008 purportedly under Section 151 of the CPC for cancellation of the Order dated 28.7.2008. This application came to be rejected on 26.9.2008. The Government of Maharashtra, getting aggrieved by this Order filed a revision petition which was rejected by State Commission summarily. Now Shonk Technologies filed another Revision Petition challenging the said order of the District Forum, Nagpur. The State Commission, however finding no infirmity with the order of the District Forum dismissed Revision Petition. It is how that the petitioner has come in Revision before us.

(2.) REVISION Petition No. 599 of 2009 is in fact an off shoot of RP No. 598 of 2009 filed by M/s. Shonkh Technology Ltd. Brief facts are that after an application was filed by the Complainant for direction to OP -2 to furnish copy of contract entered into between Government of Maharashtra and Shonkh Technologies Ltd., that application was allowed by the District Forum directing Government to produce the agreement. Subsequent to this on an application moved by OPs -1 to 3 moving the Forum for withdrawal of order passed on 28.7.2008, the application was rejected by an Order dated 26.9.2008. Against the aforesaid order Government of Maharashtra filed a Revision Petition Nos. 55 and 56 of 2008 which was rejected by the State Commission. These course of events about Complainant filing an application for production of agreement and its opposition by the Government of Maharashtra after order was passed by the Forum and Revision Petitions too having been rejected by the State Commission. finds mention in order dated 3.2.2009 passed by the State Commission which is under consideration in RP No. 598 of 2009.

(3.) THOUGH lot of arguments were canvassed by learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we do not consider all of them relevant for consideration of the limited issue in this Revision. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge that after the respondent availed other remedy to procure copy of the agreement entered into between the Government of Maharashtra and Shonk Technologies, and lost their cause before two authorities, suppressing these material facts put in a Consumer Complaint before the District Forum. Our attention has been drawn to the move of the respondent before Transport Commissioner's office under Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking directions to the concerned authority to make available copy of the agreement in question on 27.8.2007 and that was rejected, as the same was against spirit of Section 8 -D of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Authority concerned rejected application of the respondent as information sought for cannot be supplied under Section 8 -D of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The provisions contained in Section 8(D) are in the following terms: