Chandigarh Newsline:Wednesday, January 11, 2012.
Punjab Information Commission has locked horns with Chandigarh Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum over the issue of jurisdiction. The Commission has taken the stand that consumer dispute redressal courts do not have jurisdiction to entertain cases which have been decided under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
Over the last couple of years, there have been cases where the consumer courts, empowered by the Consumer Protection Act, have taken up cases filed by people against the Public Information Officers (PIOs) appointed under the RTI Act. In various cases, the consumer courts have also directed the PIOs or the department concerned to compensate the consumer.
In one such case filed by RTI activist Sanjay Kumar Mishra in August last year, the UT Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum issued notice to the Chief Information Commissioner Punjab and the PIO of the Commission.
Following the notice, the Chief Information Commissioner and the PIO moved an application in the Forum, questioning whether it had jurisdiction to adjudicate a case decided earlier under the RTI Act.
In an order passed on November 24, the Forum stated that the main case would be disposed of soon, and the issue of jurisdiction would be taken up in the same order.
Aggrieved by this, the Punjab Chief Information Commissioner (CIC) and Commission’s PIO filed a writ petition in the Punjab and Haryana High Court against Sanjay Kumar Mishra and others. Disposing of the writ petition last month, Justice Surya Kant directed the UT Consumer Forum that the issue of jurisdiction raised by the petitioners “shall be specifically decided in the final order”.
Justice Surya Kant added that in case the objection raised by the petitioners regarding jurisdiction was not accepted, the direction issued by the Consumer Forum “shall be kept in abeyance for four weeks”. The HC order stated that this would be done to enable the CIC and the Commission’s PIO to take up the issue of jurisdiction before an appropriate forum.
In a meeting held regarding the issue before filing the writ petition, the Chief Information Commissioner Punjab and other Information Commissioners had decided: “Such orders of the Consumer Forum will be challenged by the Commission in the higher constitutional courts, as the Consumer Forums have no jurisdiction over issues arising out of the RTI Act.”
This is in contradiction of a ruling of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2009. The National Consumer Commission had ruled that applicants who seek information under the RTI Act are ‘consumers’. Hence, non-submission of information by a public authority amounted to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
In June 2010, the Faridkot Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had ordered the District Transport Department to pay Rs 10,000 as compensation to a local resident for delay in providing information under the RTI Act.
And in April 2009, the Karnal Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had issued a notice to the State Principal Information Officer (SPIO) of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission under the RTI Act.
.JPG)
.JPG)
