Skip to main content

Consumer forum can’t act on RTI cases

A consumer forum cannot decide whether there is negligence or deficiency in service on the part of public information officers (PIO) or other authorities under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, said the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

In an order last month, a bench comprising commission president Justice (retd) R Regupathi, judicial member J Jayaram and member P Bakiyavathi said the Supreme Court had said the Consumer Protection Act was in addition to the provisions of other law "unless there was a clear bar." Whereas, the RTI Act had a provision which specifically said it was beyond the jurisdiction of courts.

The matter relates to a petition filed by S Jeyaram who said that under the RTI Act, he had sought some information regarding Apollo Hospitals from the public information officer and deputy/under secretary of the health and family welfare department. As the PIO failed to furnish the details, he moved north Chennai district consumer disputes redressal forum. The forum rejected the petition stating the complaint was not maintainable. Jeyaram then filed an appeal in the state commission.

He said that the relevant section of the Consumer Protection Act said: "The provisions of this act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force." As such, a person seeking information under the RTI Act could approach the consumer forum, he said

In 2013, the national commission had said that a person seeking information under the RTI Act could not be considered as a consumer as according to the relevant provision of the RTI Act, he/she had the remedy of approaching the appellate authority. Also, the RTI Act provided PIOs with independent decision making authority to decide whether disclosure of information was in public interest, said the bench.

Without being a consumer one could not seek remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, said the bench adding that after exhausting the options under the RTI Act, one could only approach the appellate forum for further reliefs and redressal of grievances.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Consumer-forum-cant-act-on-RTI-cases/articleshow/45485553.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more