BAIJNATH RAJBHAR Vs. ALOK KUMAR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the petitioner who appeared in person.

(2.) THE petitioner had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum with allegations against the officials of the Consolidation Department for having failed to furnish him with a copy of ex parte judgment dated 16.11.1997. The District Forum had awarded compensation of Rs. 1,000 against respondent - Alok Kumar and a sum of Rs. 500 each against Ramjit Yadav and Gauri Shankar Rai, for not furnishing certified copy. The complainant as well as OP had filed appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission accepted the appeal of the OPs and dismissed the complaint. The appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed.

(3.) THE State Commission has given sound and valid reasons for dismissing the complaint. The State Commission found that there was no deliberate mischief by suppressing the record; that if the Asstt. Consolidation Officer had been approached, he could have ordered disciplinary inquiry against the erring officers, but this course was not resorted to; that compromise was filed in Lok Adalat and ex parte judgement was passed but it was not known who constituted Lok Adalat and in these circumstances, Asstt. Consolidation Officer vide order dated 14.6.2003 quashed the judgment dated 16.11.1997 and also the compromise dated 12.11.1997; that order dated 16.11.1997 was not found incorporated in the list of cases which were decided in the Lok Adalat concerned; that sincere efforts were made to search judgment dated 16.11.1997 but it could not be traced out and that in the absence of positive findings against the officials holding them responsible for suppression of record, the OPs who were not custodian of the file concerned could not be held guilty for deficiency of service. On the basis of the above reasoning given by the State Commission the complaint filed by the present petitioner was dismissed by the State Commission. The reasoning given by the State Commission in support of its order is well founded and a reasoned order which could not be interfered with in the revisional jurisdiction. The revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.