L. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. the Tahsildar-cum-deputy Collector Mandal Revenue Office - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1107321
CourtAndhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided OnJul-02-2013
Case NumberFA 946 of 2012 against CC 170 of 2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy District
JudgeTHE HONOURABLE MR. R. LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. T. ASHOK KUMAR, MEMBER
AppellantL. Madhusudhan Reddy
RespondentThe Tahsildar-cum-deputy Collector Mandal Revenue Office
Excerpt:
oral order: (t. ashok kumar, member) (1) this is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant as against the orders dated 13.09.2012 in cc 170/2011 on the file of the district consumer forum, ranga reddy. for convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under : (2) the brief facts of the complaint are that when the complainant, who is a government employee, wanted to execute a registered sale deed in favour of prospective purchaser of his plot in bahadurpally village, quthbullapur mandal, ranga reddy district, the sub-register quthbullapur refused to register the same on the ground that there was prohibition of registration of lands in bahadurpally village. thereafter vide letter dated 11.04.2011 he requested the public information officer, revenue department, a.p. secretariat, hyderabad to furnish a copy of andhra pradesh gazette part i, extraordinary no. 134 , dt.10.03.2005 notification by the government (i) prohibition of registration of government lands in bahadurpally village under right to information act, 2005, in turn, it was forwarded to the public information officer, o/o the district collector, ranga reddy district vide letter dt. 04.05.2011. the said district collector vide letter dated 04.07.2011 directed the opposite party to furnish relevant information. as the op did not furnish the required information, on appeal, the appellate authority, i.e.. rdo directed the op to provide information as requested vide letter dt.24.08.2011. even then, the opposite party did not furnish information which amounts to deficiency in service on his part and hence the complaint for a direction to furnish the above said required document, to pay rs.50,000/- towards damages for mental agony and rs.10,000-/- towards costs. (3) op filed counter opposing the claim of the complainant and denying the allegations made in the complaint and the brief facts of the counter are as under : he is not aware of the alleged possession of plot in bahadurpally and selling of the same and the refusal of sub-registrar, quthbullapur to register the same on the ground of prohibition of the same and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the said sub-registrar. after receiving the letter from the district collector, ranga reddy district on 25.08.201, the op made vigorous efforts to search the said g.o.file. but due to “ sakala janula samme” for 42 days from 13.09.2011 to 24.10.2011 as per the call given by the telangana jac employees, the file could not be traced immediately and that there was some administrative delay in tracing the file and after tracing out the file , a copy of the g.o. was furnished to the complainant under rti act vide reference no. b/39/2012 dt. 06.01.2012. there was no deliberate delay and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint. (4) both sides filed evidence affidavit reiterating their respective pleadings and ex. a-1 to a-10 were marked on behalf of the complainant and ex. b -1 to b-4 were marked for the op. (5) having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the district forum dismissed the complaint and directed the complainant to pay rs.1000/- to the opposite party for obtaining ex. b1 information, rs.3,000/- costs for legal expenditure and harassment and the op is directed to serve the copy of this order to public information officer, revenue department at secretariat, o/o the collector , r.r. district and sub registrar, quthbullapur mandal, rr district with a liberty to op to claim the above said amount within 30 days (6) feeling aggrieved with the said order the unsuccessful complainant filed this appeal on several grounds and mainly contended that the district forum passed the order on the basis of presumptions and assumptions without properly considering the oral and documentary evidence believing false and baseless contentions in the affidavit and counter of the op and that the district forum failed to observe that the op disobeyed the directions of his superiors, so also, the statute of land in furnishing the information within time bound under rti act and that the that he paid requisite fee vide ex. a-1 and that the op furnished the information only after filing of the complaint itself with an intention to escape his liability and that there is deficiency in service on the part of op and that there was no document or proof to show that there was ‘sakalajanula samme for a certain period and that there was no communication to the appellant in that regard and that ex.b1 information was also furnished only after filing of the complaint and the op has not asked to pay any amount for the same and that the district forum erred in holding that the appellant followed the very lenthy process and harassed the opposite party and that the district forum passed the perverse order without proper appreciation of matter on hand and failed to see the evidence on record in proper manner and dismissed the complaint without applying its mind and thus prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. (7) heard the government pleader for the respondent with reference to his respective contentions in detail and there is no representation for the appellant. later on he submitted written arguments. (8) now the point for consideration is whether the order of the district forum is vitiated either in law or on facts? (9) the case of the complainant is that he sought for certain information under the provisions of right to information act and that the opposite party pleads that certain information vide reference no. b/39/2012 dated 6.01.2012 furnished information, i.e., a copy of andhra pradesh gazette part i, extraordinary no. 134 , dt.10.03.2005 notification by the government (i) prohibition of registration of government lands in bahadurpally village and that in spite of it the complainant intentionally alleging that he deliberately did not furnish the same and that furnished certain information after filing the complaint whereas the op contended that there was no fault on the part of the opposite party for such delay as there was sakala janula samme continuously for 42 days from 13.09.2011 to 24.10.2011. for want of jurisdiction etc, the district forum dismissed the complaint and directed the complainant to pay costs and legal expenses to op and the opposite party was also directed to serve the copy of impugned order to various authorities including public information officers concerned. as against the said order the present appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful complainant. (10) now it is to be seen whether the consumer forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. in a decision in rp no. 4061/2010 between pundalika vs. revenue department (service division), government of karnataka dt. 31.3.2011 arising under rti act, 2005 the honble national commission opined that the district forum and other tribunals constituted under the consumer protection act, 1986, have no jurisdiction and a complaint under consumer protection act, 1986, pertaining to the provisions of rti act does not lie. it was held in the said decision that : “as an alternative efficacious remedy provided under the very rti act, their lordship observed that the c. p act has no jurisdiction to the disputes arising under rti act obviously when the complainant could not got requisite information from his own officers, he cannot turn around and say that the opposite parties are guilty of not providing information. the contention that the consumer protection act overrides rti act cannot be upheld. in the light of sec. 22 of rti act, it cannot be said that the provisions of c. p act overrides the rti act which reads as follows : 22. act to have overriding effect:- the provisions of this act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the official secrets act, 1923 9 19 of 1923)m and any other law for the tie being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this act. the said decision is latest one directly on the subject and it is binding on this commission. no contra latest decision on the point has been submitted by the complainant. in a decision reported in iii (2012) cpj 72 (nc) between sp thirumala rao vs. mysore city municipal corporation it was held that consumer for a has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint when information sought for was not furnished was rendered prior to the above decision in the case of pundalika and therefore it is not helpful for the complainant. he referred to several decisions in his written/additional written arguments, viz., state of up and others vs. jeets bisht and another 2007(3) clt 10, rp no 2774/2004 of state commission, uttaranchal, lucknow dev. authority vs m k gupta , 1994 (1) scc 243, neeraj munzal and others vs. athul grower and another reported 2005 (3) clt 30, spring meadows hospital vs. harjol ahluwalia 1998 (4) scc 39, fair air engineers pvt ltd. vs mk modi, sky pack couriers ltd vs tata chemicals ltd 2005 (5) scc 294, state of karnataka vs viswabharathi coop. housing building society, secretary, thirumurugan agricultural cooperative society vs. m. lalitha 2004 (1) scc 305 etc. so also several decisions of district forums but none of them are helpful for him in this case in view of the said latest decision of the natinal commission. it is much more so when facts of the said cases are different from that of the facts of the case on hand. when complaint is liable to be dismissed on the point of jurisdiction it is unnecessary to go into the merits of the case. in view of the above discussion, the dismissal of complaint on the point of jurisdiction etc is justified. however, imposing costs on the complainant directing him to pay the same to the op so also other directions to the opposite party are unwarranted in this case and the same is liable to be set aside. (11). in the result, the appeal is disposed of sustaining the dismissal of the complaint on the point of jurisdiction etc. and rest of the order is set aside. however, the complainant is at liberty to seek redressal before competent authority under the provisions of rti act. no order as to costs in the appeal. no order as to costs in the appeal.
Judgment:

Oral Order: (T. Ashok Kumar, Member)

(1) This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant as against the orders dated 13.09.2012 in CC 170/2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy. For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under :

(2) The brief facts of the complaint are that when the complainant, who is a Government employee, wanted to execute a registered sale deed in favour of prospective purchaser of his plot in Bahadurpally village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, the Sub-Register Quthbullapur refused to register the same on the ground that there was prohibition of Registration of Lands in Bahadurpally village. Thereafter vide letter dated 11.04.2011 he requested the Public Information Officer, Revenue Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad to furnish a copy of Andhra Pradesh Gazette part I, Extraordinary No. 134 , dt.10.03.2005 Notification by the Government (i) Prohibition of Registration of Government Lands in Bahadurpally Village under Right to Information Act, 2005, in turn, it was forwarded to the Public Information officer, O/o the District Collector, Ranga Reddy district vide letter dt. 04.05.2011. The said District Collector vide letter dated 04.07.2011 directed the opposite party to furnish relevant information. As the OP did not furnish the required information, on Appeal, the Appellate Authority, i.e.. RDO directed the OP to provide information as requested vide letter dt.24.08.2011. Even then, the Opposite party did not furnish information which amounts to deficiency in service on his part and hence the complaint for a direction to furnish the above said required document, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages for mental agony and Rs.10,000-/- towards costs.

(3) OP filed counter opposing the claim of the complainant and denying the allegations made in the complaint and the brief facts of the counter are as under :

He is not aware of the alleged possession of plot in Bahadurpally and selling of the same and the refusal of Sub-Registrar, Quthbullapur to register the same on the ground of prohibition of the same and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the said Sub-Registrar. After receiving the letter from the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District on 25.08.201, the OP made vigorous efforts to search the said G.O.file. But due to “ Sakala Janula Samme” for 42 days from 13.09.2011 to 24.10.2011 as per the call given by the Telangana JAC Employees, the file could not be traced immediately and that there was some administrative delay in tracing the file and after tracing out the file , a copy of the G.O. was furnished to the complainant under RTI Act vide reference No. B/39/2012 dt. 06.01.2012. There was no deliberate delay and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

(4) Both sides filed evidence affidavit reiterating their respective pleadings and Ex. A-1 to A-10 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex. B -1 to B-4 were marked for the OP.

(5) Having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint and directed the complainant to pay Rs.1000/- to the opposite party for obtaining Ex. B1 information, Rs.3,000/- costs for legal expenditure and harassment and the OP is directed to serve the copy of this order to Public Information officer, Revenue Department at Secretariat, O/o the collector , R.R. District and Sub Registrar, Quthbullapur Mandal, RR District with a liberty to OP to claim the above said amount within 30 days

(6) Feeling aggrieved with the said order the unsuccessful complainant filed this appeal on several grounds and mainly contended that the District Forum passed the order on the basis of presumptions and assumptions without properly considering the oral and documentary evidence believing false and baseless contentions in the affidavit and counter of the OP and that the District Forum failed to observe that the OP disobeyed the directions of his superiors, so also, the statute of land in furnishing the information within time bound under RTI Act and that the that he paid requisite fee vide Ex. A-1 and that the OP furnished the information only after filing of the complaint itself with an intention to escape his liability and that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP and that there was no document or proof to show that there was ‘Sakalajanula Samme for a certain period and that there was no communication to the appellant in that regard and that Ex.B1 information was also furnished only after filing of the complaint and the OP has not asked to pay any amount for the same and that the District Forum erred in holding that the appellant followed the very lenthy process and harassed the opposite party and that the District Forum passed the perverse order without proper appreciation of matter on hand and failed to see the evidence on record in proper manner and dismissed the complaint without applying its mind and thus prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

(7) Heard the Government pleader for the respondent with reference to his respective contentions in detail and there is no representation for the appellant. Later on he submitted written arguments.

(8) Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated either in law or on facts?

(9) The case of the complainant is that he sought for certain information under the Provisions of Right to Information Act and that the opposite party pleads that certain information vide reference No. B/39/2012 dated 6.01.2012 furnished information, i.e., a copy of Andhra Pradesh Gazette part I, Extraordinary No. 134 , dt.10.03.2005 Notification by the Government (i) Prohibition of Registration of Government Lands in Bahadurpally Village and that in spite of it the complainant intentionally alleging that he deliberately did not furnish the same and that furnished certain information after filing the complaint whereas the OP contended that there was no fault on the part of the opposite party for such delay as there was Sakala Janula Samme continuously for 42 days from 13.09.2011 to 24.10.2011. For want of jurisdiction etc, the District Forum dismissed the complaint and directed the complainant to pay costs and legal expenses to OP and the opposite party was also directed to serve the copy of impugned order to various authorities including public information officers concerned. As against the said order the present appeal has been preferred by the unsuccessful complainant.

(10) Now it is to be seen whether the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. In a decision in RP No. 4061/2010 between Pundalika VS. Revenue Department (Service division), Government of Karnataka dt. 31.3.2011 arising under RTI Act, 2005 the Honble National Commission opined that the District Forum and other Tribunals constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, have no jurisdiction and a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, pertaining to the provisions of RTI Act does not lie. It was held in the said decision that :

“As an alternative efficacious remedy provided under the very RTI Act, their Lordship observed that the C. P Act has no jurisdiction to the disputes arising under RTI Act Obviously when the complainant could not got requisite information from his own officers, he cannot turn around and say that the opposite parties are guilty of not providing information. The contention that the Consumer Protection Act overrides RTI Act cannot be upheld. In the light of Sec. 22 of RTI Act, it cannot be said that the provisions of C. P Act overrides the RTI Act which reads as follows :

22. Act to have overriding effect:- The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 9 19 of 1923)m and any other law for the tie being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act.

The said decision is latest one directly on the subject and it is binding on this Commission. No contra latest decision on the point has been submitted by the complainant. In a decision reported in III (2012) CPJ 72 (NC) between SP Thirumala Rao Vs. Mysore City Municipal Corporation it was held that Consumer For a has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint when information sought for was not furnished was rendered prior to the above decision in the case of Pundalika and therefore it is not helpful for the complainant. He referred to several decisions in his written/additional written arguments, viz., State of UP and others VS. Jeets Bisht and another 2007(3) CLT 10, RP NO 2774/2004 of State Commission, Uttaranchal, Lucknow Dev. Authority Vs M K Gupta , 1994 (1) SCC 243, Neeraj Munzal and others Vs. Athul Grower and another Reported 2005 (3) CLT 30, Spring Meadows Hospital VS. Harjol Ahluwalia 1998 (4) SCC 39, Fair Air Engineers Pvt Ltd. Vs MK MOdi, Sky pack couriers Ltd VS Tata chemicals Ltd 2005 (5) SCC 294, State of Karnataka Vs Viswabharathi Coop. Housing Building society, Secretary, Thirumurugan Agricultural Cooperative society Vs. M. Lalitha 2004 (1) SCC 305 etc. So also several decisions of District Forums but none of them are helpful for him in this case in view of the said latest decision of the Natinal Commission. It is much more so when facts of the said cases are different from that of the facts of the case on hand. When complaint is liable to be dismissed on the point of jurisdiction it is unnecessary to go into the merits of the case. In view of the above discussion, the dismissal of complaint on the point of jurisdiction etc is justified. However, imposing costs on the complainant directing him to pay the same to the OP so also other directions to the opposite party are unwarranted in this case and the same is liable to be set aside.

(11). In the result, the appeal is disposed of sustaining the dismissal of the complaint on the point of jurisdiction etc. and rest of the order is set aside. However, the complainant is at liberty to seek redressal before competent authority under the provisions of RTI Act. No order as to costs in the appeal. No order as to costs in the Appeal.