(Querist) 16 January 2010
This query is : Resolved
In 2009, in the case of Dr S.P.Thirumala Rao of Mysore the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission New Delhi awarded compensation and litigation cost to him in the case filed against local Municipality for deficiency in service in not attending to the matters related to his application under RTI Act 2005. The Doctor had claimed himself to be the consumer since he had paid the prescribed fee under the act to get the information. However, certain confusion requires to be discussed and cleared.Can we file a complaint before the Consumer Forum against the State's Chief Information Commissioner for keeping the Appeal u/s 19(3) RTI Act pending for the last 2 years without deciding the same? My question is that who is the responsible person for deficiency in service? Is it the SPIO/CPIO for not supplying the complete information or deemed refusal in supplying the information or the 1st Appellate Authority for supporting the conduct of the SPIO or the Chief Information Commissioner for keeping the matter pending for 2 years by not disposing of the same or all of them? Should all of them be made party? Or when the SPIO and AA have disposed the application u/s 6 and 19(1)RTI act then what is their deficiency in service? I believe that the CIC is only responsible for the delay and he should be made the party for not deciding the same. One official of the CIC (WBIC) said to me that there is no time limit for the CIC to dispose any Appeal under section 19(3)RTI Act hence no illegality has taken place. What is the opinion of the Learned Members? Kindly guide me.