This is the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner against the Order of the Puducherry State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Pondicherry District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Both these Commissions had dismissed the Complaint filed by the Petitioner on the ground that such Complaint is not maintainable. The issue in hand is whether the Consumer Commission has the jurisdiction to hear the Complaints relating to disputes or grievances arising out of the Right to Information Act (RTI). In this matter, the Petitioner had dispute with regard to certain information, which he had sought through RTI from the Respondent. On not getting the satisfactory reply, he filed a consumer complaint.

          As submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae, a larger Bench of this Commission has dealt with such matter at length in R.P. No. 3146/2012, Sanjay Kumar Mishra vs. Public Information Officer (PIO) & Anr., decided on 08.01.2015, wherein the grievance arising out of the RTI Act has been dealt with and it has been finally held that the Consumer Commissions do not have the necessary jurisdiction in matters relating to RTI and that the redressal mechanism is already provided under the RTI Act, which the Complainant can take recourse to. It has been held that the RTI Act is a complete code in itself, which provides an adequate and effective remedy to the person aggrieved from any decision / inaction / act / omission or misconduct of a CPIO / PIO (Public Information Officer). It was also held that Section 23 of the RTI Act bars jurisdiction of Courts and a Consumer Commission has been interpreted as ‘Courts’ for the purpose of Section 23 of the RTI Act.

          In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Revision Petition is dismissed and the Complaint is held as non-maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019, giving liberty to the Petitioner to seek redressal of his grievance in an appropriate Forum / Court of law.