| This revision petition has been filed against concurrent orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Guntur and the AP State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The matter pertained to seeking of information by the Complainant under Right to Information Act, and the response of the OP/Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) to the same. The District Forum dismissed the complaint noting that the Complainant had not requested the opposite party to furnish the required information with specific and proper description of the documents and failed to inspect the records of the opposite party, inspite of the advice of the opposite party to identify the required documents. 2. The District Forum also referred to the order of 17.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in a writ petition filed by the Complainant seeking direction to the respondent/BPCL to allow him to inspect the relevant records. The District Forum has observed that the writ petition was withdrawn by the Complainant on the ground that certain information had been furnished by the respondent. 3. The Complainant challenged the above order of the District Forum, before the State Commission, Andhra Pradesh, on the ground that the act of the respondent/BPCL amounted to misfeasance. The State Commission dismissed the appeal with the following observation e do not appreciate the said contention in order to proceed with the complaint. Basically her case is that information sought for under RTI Act, 2005 has not been furnished. May be there was some misfeasance, however, when an appeal is provided against non-furnishing of information by the Public Information Officer under the RTI Act, 2005, the National Commission has categorically stated that aggrieved party has to approach the appellate authority invoking the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. The said judgment is binding on this Commission. We cannot sit over the judgment, and distinguish when such a distinction is not there. It is for the appellant/complainant to approach the appellate authority as provided under RTI Act, 2005 as was suggested by the National Commission. It is not as though she has no other forum to ventilate or redress her grievance. What all barred was filing a complaint before the consumer fora in the light of the fact that an alternative forum is provided under the RTI Act, 2005 to file an appeal. She cannot complain that the Dist. Forum only has to redress her grievance. The complaint is misconceived. We do not see any merits in the appeal. 4. In the proceedings before this Commission, the revision petitioner/Complainant has been represented by her son-in-law Mr. G.L.N. Prasad, on the basis of power attorney given by the Complainant. We have heard the PoA holder on behalf of the revision petitioner/Complainant and perused the records. 5. The facts as narrated in the revision petition (captioned as Memorandum of Regular Appeal) provide the necessary backdrop to the consumer complaint before the District Forum. In the words of the Complainant herself:- y only son has leased our property to respondent for their retail outlet in 1980 and upto 2000, and immediately after his death in 1998, respondent dealer has filed collusive partition suit in Principal Court claiming that property was purchased in Court Auction in 1964/71 and the lease was entered by respondent with dealer and they have been receiving lease rent. The claim was baseless, false and absurd. If their claim of sale in 1964 is true respondents should have never renewed lease and paying lease rent to my son since 1980. The respondent dealer claim was false, as the property was never put into Auction. Thus this lonely lady living below poverty line at the age of 86 became a victim of fraud perpetrated on property leased to respondent, when she has left Guntur in 1974 and returned in 2003. 6. Coming to the grounds of challenge to the impugned order, the petitioner claims that it is for her to decide where she can secure her remedy. As per the petition, she has chosen to file a consumer complaint as Consumer Protection Act provides a remedy, which is alternative to the one under the Right to Information Act. This contention of the petitioner needs to be seen with reference to her prayer in the complaint petition before the District Forum, which reads as follows:- rayer: The complainant submits that the entire correspondence revolved round the property leased to OP by complainant family for their retail outlet at Guntur and as such the complaint is within jurisdiction of Hon. Forum. The applicant has remitted Rs.100/- as service charges and as applicant RTI she had every right for information as per CIC decision. Due to negligence and deficiency of service she has incurred severe damages as shown in Annexure B. Hence complainant humbly prays Hon. Forum for furnishing of information as per RTI ACT, costs as per RTI Act and damages Rs.14, lakhs suffered as per Annexure B. 7. The above prayer runs contrary to the facts before the fora below, have held that the complainant did not approach the competent authority under Right to Information Act, in the manner she was advised. The District Forum has noted that there was no denial of information by the competent authority under Right to Information Act. The complainant was advised to seek inspection of the relevant record so as to able to specify the required information, which should be furnished. But, the Complainant failed to inspect the office of the opposite party to identify the required documents. Moreover, we find from the order of the District Forum that the Complainant had also filed a writ petition before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and had later withdrawn it, on the ground that certain information had already been furnished by the opposite party. 8. The revision petitioner does not question these facts and merely states that she has explored all avenues with the appellate authority under Section 18 of the RTI Act but had not been provided any remedy. This bland statement carries no conviction in the face of evidence to the contrary before the fora below. 9. In the result, we hold that the revision petitioner has completely failed to make out any case against the impugned order. We find no ground to interfere with the order of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in FA No.550 of 2011. The revision petition is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. | |
