Points to Note from RTI Act

Consumer Voice - - Legal Matters -

Na­tional Com­mis­sion, where it was ar­gued that the pro­tec­tion pro­vided un­der Con­sumer Pro­tec­tion Act was in ad­di­tion to the reme­dies avail­able un­der any other statute. While the Com­mis­sion agreed that the con­sumer fo­rum was an ad­di­tional rem­edy avail­able to the con­sumer for re­dres­sal of his grievance, they also stated that they could not al­low fil­ing of an ap­peal against the or­der passed un­der some dif­fer­ent Act (RTI in this case) and by a dif­fer­ent au­thor­ity. Fi­nally they held that the com­plainant was ‘not’ the con­sumer un­der th­ese cir­cum­stances. in­di­vid­ual has re­ceived cer­tain or­ders from the nodal and ap­pel­late au­thor­i­ties un­der RTI Act, then a con­sumer fo­rum can­not ap­peal against that or­der. reads: “Bar on ju­ris­dic­tion of courts: No court shall en­ter­tain any suit, ap­pli­ca­tion or other pro­ceed­ing in re­spect of any or­der made, un­der this Act, and

Or­ders to Note

What We May Con­clude

In case you fail to get the de­sired re­vert on your RTI, you may get lucky by ap­peal­ing in con­sumer fo­rums and may end up get­ting some com­pen­sa­tion too. How­ever, the dis­trict and state con­sumer fo­rums’ de­ci­sions can be chal­lenged and al­tered in the Na­tional Com­mis­sion, wherein it has al­ready been es­tab­lished that the RTI ap­pli­cant is not a con­sumer. So, the right way for­ward will be to make a first ap­peal or a com­plaint to ap­pel­late au­thor­i­ties un­der RTI and a sec­ond one to the In­for­ma­tion Com­mis­sion.

The last point of ap­peal is, of course, the courts. Although the Cen­tral Act at­tempts to bar ap­peals to the courts, this is not con­sti­tu­tional. The Supreme Court of In­dia has long rec­og­nized that the right to in­for­ma­tion is a fun­da­men­tal con­sti­tu­tional right, which means that you can al­ways take a case to the court in support of that right. Kar­nataka, be­fore the State Com­mis­sion of Kar­nataka, the bench headed by Jus­tice Ashok Bhan held that “com­plainant can­not be con­sid­ered as a con­sumer as de­fined un­der the Con­sumer Pro­tec­tion Act since there is a rem­edy avail­able for the com­plainant to ap­proach the ap­pel­late au­thor­ity u/s 19 of the RTI Act, 2005.” ver­sus Tasha Man­dlekar case. The judge­ment read: “After re­spon­dent has lost its move to se­cure copy of the agree­ment in ques­tion un­der the Right to In­for­ma­tion Act, be­fore a Com­pe­tent Au­thor­ity also the Ap­pel­late Au­thor­ity, this Com­mis­sion can­not ex­er­cise re­vi­sion ju­ris­dic­tion sit­ting over the de­ci­sions ren­dered by th­ese two au­thor­i­ties. After avail­ing one rem­edy pre­scribed un­der the statute, tak­ing re­course to Con­sumer Grievance Re­dres­sal Agency hop­ing for fur­ther re­lief was not per­mis­si­ble.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from India

© PressReader. All rights reserved.