Madras High Court
The Public Information Officer / ... vs The District Consumer Disputes ... on 9 September, 2022
W.P(MD)No.7837 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.7837 of 2013
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013
The Public Information Officer / Executive Engineer,
Thirunelveli Urban Electricity Distribution,
Executive Engineer Office, V.M.Chattram,
Maharajanagar Post, Thirunelveli District. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Thirunelveli.
2.A.Bramma @ Piramanayagam ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,
calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order, dated
13.03.2013, passed in Consumer complaint No.155 of 2012 on the file of
the first respondent and quash the same as without jurisdiction and
consequently directing the second respondent to pay a compensation of
Rs.2 lakhs to the petitioner.
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7837 of 2013
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
For R-1 : No appearance
For R-2 : Mr.D.Saravanan
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the award
passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli
in Consumer Complaint No.155 of 2012 on the ground that a Public
Information Officer under the Right to Information Act can never be
considered to be a consumer and not amenable to Consumer Protection
Act.
2. The learned Counsel for the 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7837 of 2013
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.”
Thus, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to
entertain such complaint as against the Public Information Officer under
the Right to Information Act.
3. In view of the above said judgment of the National Consumer
Commission, the order impugned in the writ petition has been passed
without jurisdiction and hence, the writ petition stands partly allowed to
the extent of setting aside of the order passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum. As far as the prayer for Mandamus for
payment of compensation is concerned and the same is rejected. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition stands closed.
09.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
btr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.7837 of 2013
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
btr
To
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Thirunelveli.
Order made in
W.P(MD)No.7837 of 2013
09.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
