Srinivas.B.S.S.T ( Advocate) 05 August 2008
podicheti.srinivas (advocate/legal consultant) 05 August 2008
To the best of my knowledge no.you are not fitting into the word consumer .you will have an alternative remedy under article 226 you got to file a writ of mandamus and get the relief .
GOPI KRISHNA (ADVOCATE) 05 August 2008
The available remidy is writ u/a 226 of constitution and Mr Srinivas is right in his opinion
J. P. Shah (RTI & CONSUMER ACTIVIST) 03 September 2008
UNDER RTI CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION NEW DELHI IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY FOR CENTRAL GOVT INFO AND STATE INFO COM IS FOR STATE INFO. U CAN CHALLENGE THEIR DECISIONS IN HIGH COURTS OR SUPREME COURT ONLY. CP IS NOT IN PICTURE.
Pankaj Rai (Lawyer) 14 September 2008
Applicant under RTI act may not file a complaint before consumert court .U/s 2 of The Consumer Protection Act he is not a consumer.
TVD Rajkumar (Advocate) 16 December 2008
Iam not sure. I believe Mr. Srinivas may be having a valid intersting point.
Similar issue was raised regarding court fee and functioning of courts
As copied from this site https://www.advantageconsumer.com/gnl5.html
But one thing in that judgment is exercise of sovereign function by the courts, while under RTI Act there is no such sovereign function by the public authorities.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
Revision Petition No. 108 of 1993
Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat ... Appellant
The State of Gujurat ... Respondent
Before : Hon'ble Justice V. Balakrishna Eradi
The question raised in this Revision Petition is whether litigant who has instituted a suit or other proceeding in a Civil Court after payment of "Court Fee" can be regarded as a "consumer" who has 'hired' or 'availed of' a service on payment of consideration. The State Commission, Gujarat answered this question in the negative dismissing the complaint which was filed before it by the appellant-herein, Hence this Revision Petition by the complainant.
We are in complete agreement with the aforesaid conclusion recorded by the State Commission as well as the reasons set out in the impugned order in support of the said view.
In entertaining and adjudicating upon a suit or other proceeding field before it, the Court is acting in the exercise of the sovereign judicial power of the State and it is not rendering a 'service' in pursuance of a contract between thelitigant and the Court for which consideration has been collected. The dispensation of justice is conducted by the Court not as a QUID PRO QUO for the Court fee that has been remitted. All sums levied and collected as Court fees go to the consolidated fund of the State and hence it cannot be said that the payment of Court fee was by way of "consideration" for the "hiring" or "availing of" a service from the Court. The State Commission was, therefore, prefectly right in setting aside the order of the District Forum and dismissing the complaint petition wherein the grievance put forward by the complainant was that there were serious deficiencies in the set up of the Civil Judicial Administration in the State of Gujarat.
The order of the State Commission is accordingly confirmed and this Revision Petition is dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs.
J. P. Shah (RTI & CONSUMER ACTIVIST) 08 January 2009
ONLY REMEDY AGAINST DECISIONS OF PIO AND FAA IS TO FILE SECOND APPEAL WITH CENTRAL OR STATE INFORMATION COM U/S 19 OF RTI ACT. NO COURT CAN INTERFERE IN RTI MATTERS EXCEPT BY WAY OF WRITS. CONSUMER FORA HAVE NO JURISDICTION IN RTI MATTERS.
RAKHI BUDHIRAJA ADVOCATE (LAWYER AT BUDHIRAJA & ASSOCIATES SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) 08 January 2009
Applicant under RTI act may not file a complaint before consumert court .U/s 2 of The Consumer Protection Act he is not a consumer. The alternate remedy is Article 226 of Indian Constitutional Law, by filing a writ