Complainant is absent on repeated calls. The case is posted today for hearing on admission. As the complainant is absent, the record is taken up for consideration. Perused the complaint petition and the documents filed therewith. On perusal of the documents, it is seen that this is a case wherein the complainant had applied for certain information under the provisions  of RTI Act-2005 to the State PIO of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. The application was transferred to the PIO of the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Nuapada on 02.11.2018. It is further revealed that the Registrar, Civil Court, Phulbani has provided certain information to the complainant vide his L.No.1433 dt. 01.03.2019 with reference to his application dt. 29.09.2018 u/s 6 (3) of RTI Act-2005. Being aggrieved by the information provided by the Registrar, Civil Court, Phulbani, he has filed a Complaint Case bearing No. 1649/2019 before the Information Commission, Bhubaneswar for redressal of his grievances on 16.07.2019. He has simultaneously filed the present complaint petition before this Commission praying therein for the following reliefs.

“01. It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Commission many kindly be

admit this complaint u/s 18 of the statute, inquire the same in the interest of public

and for the protection of the fundamental right

02. It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Commission many kindly be

please to award to the complainant, a compensation of Rs.2.00 Crore in total ( Rs.Two

Crore Only) against the opposition party(s).

03. It is therefore direct the opposition party(s) to install the grievance redressal

mechanism to redress the complaint petitions of the aggrieved people.

04. It is therefore, the commission should direct the opposition party(s) to direct the Opp.

Party to constitute the official website and public all the information into I tin

compliance of section-4(1)(b) of the Statute.

05. It is therefore, the commission should direct the opposition party(s) to direct the

appointment, publishing of the address and contact details of the PIO, Transparency

officer and 1st appellate authority.

06. It is therefore, the commission should direct the competent authority to monitor the

conduct of the Opp. Party should communicate the name, designation and contact

details of the PIO, Transparency officer and the 1st appellate authority in all

communication

07. It is therefore, the commission should direct departmental inquiry against the Opp.

Party to send them for the refreshment training of the statute.

08. It is therefore, the commission should direct the Opp. Party to donate their 6 months

salary to the CM relief fund.

09. It is therefore, the commission should direct the Opp. Party to redress all pending

applications afresh.

10. It, is therefor, the commission may grant other relief as it think fit to meet the complete end of justice”.

                        It is very much clear from the complaint petition itself that the last cause of action for filing this dispute arose on 01.03.2019. The limitation for filing a complaint before this Commission under the provision of the CP Act-2019 is two years from the date of cause of action. In the present case, the case has been filed after a period of 4 years and 10 months. No petition has been filed by the complainant for condonation of delay. The case is poorly barred by limitation and in our view it is not a case of continued cause of action as pleaded by the complainant.

            Besides, the reliefs sought for by the complainant are not within the scope and purview of the CP Act-2019.

            As the case is barred by limitation and the reliefs sought for is not within the scope and purview the C.P.Act 2019, the case is not admitted.

            Office is directed to provide a copy of the order to the complainant.