Madras High Court
The Public Information Officer vs The District Consumer Disputes on 23 September, 2022
W.P(MD)No.15827 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.09.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
W.P(MD)No.15827 of 2013
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013
The Public Information Officer,
EB Vigilance Office,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Limited,
144, Anna Salai, N.P.K.R.R.Maaligai,
Opposite to LIC of India,
Chennai-600 002. ... 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
02.07.2013, passed in Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2013 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.15827 of 2013
For Petitioner : M/s.S.Deenadhayalan
Standing Counsel
For Respondents : No appearance
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the award
passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum as against the
petitioner herein. The petitioner is the Public Information Officer of EB
vigilance Office, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Limited. The second
respondent has lodged a consumer complaint as against the writ
petitioner in Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2013. In the said complaint,
the first respondent has passed an award on 02.07.2013.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15827 of 2013
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.”
3. In view of the judgment of the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum Commission, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain a consumer complaint as against
the Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act. In
view of the above said facts, the award passed by the first respondent
herein is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands
closed.
23.09.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
btr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P(MD)No.15827 of 2013
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.
btr
To
The District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Thirunelveli.
Order made in
W.P(MD)No.15827 of 2013
23.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
