Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/23/98

Ajay Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Public Information officer - Opp.Party(s)

complaint in person

16 Mar 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 98 dated 06.03.2023.                                                         Date of decision: 16.03.2023. 

Ajay Sharma s/o Mangat Ram Sharma, B-33/2184, Bhagwan Dass Colony, Salem Tabri, Ludhiana-141008. Mo:98156-61652.

                                                                                       ..…Complainant                                                            Versus

The Public Information Officer Sub Registrar East Transport Nagar Ludhiana.

…..Opposite party

Complaint under Section 35 of The Consumer Protection Act,2019(as amended upto date).

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH.JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         In person.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                The complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission by filing the present complaint claiming himself to be a consumer stating therein that vide application dated 06.01.2023, he had sought the information under RTI Act, 2005 from the OP pertaining to numbers of Vasikas/sale deeds registered by Sub Registrar East Ludhiana with NOCs issued by Glada during the period of 19.03.2018 to 31.12.2022 pertaining to area fall under the Glada and outside limits of Municipal Corporation Ludhiana, but no information or record provided by OP within the stipulated time. He had deposited the due fees charged by the OP for the service of providing information vide Indian Postal Order No.60F 849030 of Rs.10/- dated 06.01.2023. According to the complainant, OP  has failed to provide the service i.e. information sought by him within the stipulated period and it indicates the negligent and unprofessional approach of the OP. It has resulted in mental harassment, stress along with irreparable loss to the complainant. OP has shown deficiency in service by failing to provide the information after charging the requisite fee. Hence by filing the present complaint, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to pay compensation and miscellaneous expenses to the tune of Rs.35,000/- to him.

2.                We have heard the complainant in person on the point of admissibility of the complaint and have gone through the record.

3.                The Right to Information Act, 2005 came into force with an object to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, with a view to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. A comprehensive mechanism has been provided under the aforesaid Act itself for obtaining the information and for redressing the grievance of a person in case the information is denied arbitrarily. The person aggrieved of the decision of public information officer has right to file the appeal before the State Information Commission as per the Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the Appellate Authority is empowered to impose penalty as envisaged in Section 20 of the RTI Act. However, during the course of arguments, complainant has admitted that he has not filed any appeal before the State Information Commission but choose to other remedy for filing this complaint under the Consumer Protection Act before this Commission.

4.                In the recent judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Ireo Grace Realtech (P) Ltd. versus Abhishek Khanna-(2021)3 SCC-241, it has been held that when two concurrent remedies are available to an aggrieved consumer, one under the CP Act and the second under the other laws, then that aggrieved consumer has an independent option to elect which one out of the two or more remedies, he wishes to exercise. And if he elects one over the other, he loses the right to simultaneously exercise the other for the same cause of action.

5.                Applying the ratio of the afore-cited law, we are of the considered opinion that since the complainant has sought the information from Public Information Officer, Sub-Registrar(East) Ludhiana under RTI Act which was not supplied to him within the statutory period. As the complainant has already invoked the provisions of RTI Act and he is required to seek further remedy under the RTI Act itself, if he feels aggrieved the order of PIO. Admittedly, he has not filed any appeal under the RTI Act and instead he has chosen to file the present complaint. The complainant has already exercised his option to seek redressal of his remedy under the RTI Act, therefore, the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable before this Commission. So, we do not inclined to proceed with the same and hence the same is hereby dismissed summarily at the admission stage itself. Copies of order be supplied to the complainant free of costs as per rules.                          

6.                File be indexed and consigned to record room, but after registering the same.

 

(Monika Bhagat)             (Jaswinder Singh)      (Sanjeev Batra)                        Member                     Member                      President      

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:16.03.2023.

Gurpreet Sharma