Madras High Court
The Public Information Officer vs Jeya Chandran on 4 July, 2022
W.P.(MD).No.13143 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.07.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P.(MD).No.13143 of 2012
M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2012
1.The Public Information Officer,
Thoothukudi City Municipal Corporation,
Thoothukudi.
2.The Commissioner,
Thoothukudi City Municipal Corporation,
Thoothukudi. ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.Jeya Chandran
2.The President,
District Consumer Redressal Forum,
Tuticorin. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call the
impugned records on the file of the 2nd respondent in C.C.No.118 of
2011, dated 17.05.2012 and to quash the same.
For Petitioners : No appearance
For Respondents : No appearance
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.13143 of 2012
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed by the respondents in a consumer
complaint as against the award passed by the second respondent District
Consumer Redressal Forum.
2.The second respondent District Consumer Forum has entertained
a consumer complaint as against the first petitioner, namely, Public
Information Officer of Tuticorin City Municipal Corporation and
proceeded to pass an award imposing a compensation of Rs.15,000/-
(Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) for mental agony and sufferings and a
sum of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) towards the cost of the
proceedings.
3.According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Public
Information Officer under the Right to Information Act cannot fall within
the jurisdiction of Consumer Redressal Forum and a consumer complaint
cannot be raised as against him due to non furnishing of any information
or delay in furnishing any information. The learned Counsel for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.13143 of 2012
petitioner relied upon a judgment rendered by National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission reported in 2015 SCC OnLine NCDRC
2. In Paragraph No.25 of the said judgment, the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum Commission has held as follows:
“25.For the reasons stated hereinabove, we hold that (i) the
person seeking information under the provisions of RTI Act
cannot be said to be a consumer vis-a-vis the Public Authority
concerned or CPIO/PIO nominated by it and (ii) the jurisdiction
of the Consumer Fora to intervene in the matters arising out of
the provisions of the RTI Act is barred by necessary implication
as also under the provisions of Section 23 of the said Act.
Consequently no complaint by a person alleging deficiency in the
services rendered by the CPIO/PIO is maintainable before a
Consumer Forum.”
4.In view of the above said judgment, the second respondent
District Consumer Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction whatsoever, to
entertain a complaint and hence, the award, dated 17.05.2012, passed in
Consumer Complaint No.118 of 2011, is hereby set aside.
5.With the above said observation, the Writ Petition is allowed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.07.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Tmg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD).No.13143 of 2012
R.VIJAYAKUMAR ,J.
Tmg
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may
be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that
the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate /
litigant concerned.
Order made in
W.P.(MD).No.13143 of 2012
04.07.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
