1. The whole controversy pivots around the question, hether their lies a rub for the consumer foras to entertain a case pertaining to the Right to Information Act 2005 (in short RTI Act)? 2. Both the foras below dismissed the prayer made by M.s Pothireddipalli Sugunavati, complainant wherein she alleged that she was not furnished information under RTI Act, 2005. The facts of this case are these. The complainant M.s Pothireddipalli Sugunavati moved an application on 07.02.2012 for information from Territory Manager(Retail), BPCL, Vijayawada, the PIO under RTI Act. She asked for 29 items under information. Her allegation is that she was not provided the requisite information. The reminder was also sent on 02.04.2012. She also filed an appeal before the appellate authority Director (DR), BPCL, Mumbai on 10.03.2012. She did not get the desired result. Subsequently, she issued a final notice on 12.04.2012. She also preferred an appeal before the same appellate authority on 09.04.2012 under Section 19(1) of RTI Act. 3. The District Forum dismissed the appeal on the ground that it had no jurisdiction as per Honle Supreme Court order in Ghaziabad Development Vs. Balbir Singh reported in (2004) 5 SCC 65. The District Forum also referred to the order of this Commission in Pundalika Vs. Revenue Department, Govt. of Karnataka in RP No. 4061 of 2010 dated 31.03.2011. 4. Aggrieved by that order, the appeal was preferred before the State Commission. There as well as here, the counsel for the petitioner submits that non-furnishing of information amounts to misfeasance in public office and therefore, the complaint is maintainable. 5. In view of the above said Supreme Court authority, the State Commission did not listen to that eye wash and gave a short shrift to this contention. The District Forum also referred to sections 22 and 23 of the Right to Information Act which run as follows:- 2. Act to have overriding effect:- The provision of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent threrewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. From this it is beyond doubt that this Act however, has on overriding effect in that the authorities under this Act may make independent decisions about the question whether such disclosure or non-disclosure has any overriding public interest. Therefore, it may become necessary for the authorities to independently decide whether disclosure of information which itself being an act done in public interest, overweighs the public interest sought to be protected under those enactments. 23. Bar of Jurisdiction of Courts:- No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act. 6. Again this Commission took the same view in Shonkh Technologies Ltd. Vs. Tushar Mandlekar IV (2009) CPJ 280 (NC). It is thus clear that the Consumer Foras are not armed with that power. The revision petition filed by the petitioner is lame of strength and is, therefore, dismissed.