Quashed

Vincent E. v. Ravikrishnan N.R

Kerala HC4 Nov 2016WP(C)/13937/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged an order by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directing him to pay compensation under the RTI Act. The court held the Consumer Forum lacked jurisdiction as a specific statutory remedy exists under the Right to Information Act, rendering the Forum's order arbitrary and illegal.

What did the court decide?

Set aside Ext. P9 order passed by the third respondent.

Vincent E. Vs Ravikrishnan N.R — RTI and Transparency | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/13TH KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 13937 of 2016 (N) ----------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S): -------------

¶7

VINCENT E. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, REVENUE OFFICER (GRADE-II) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION, LMS, CORPORATION BUILDINGS PALAYAM, VIKAS BHAVAN, M.G.ROAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695033.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR SMT.SMITHA S.PILLAI SMT.M.C.SINY

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. RAVIKRISHNAN N.R

¶11

HOUSE NO.101# N.S.P NAGAR T.C.NO.3/1753(2) KESAVADASAPURAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695004.

¶12

2. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶13

3. THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695014. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETAY.

¶14

BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.S.KANNAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-11-2016,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

WP(C).No. 13937 of 2016 (N)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIO -------	NER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------
P1:	COPY OF THE APPLICATION DTD.1.12.2011 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE INFORMATION OFFICER.
P2:	COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.R23/JSK/RIA/2271/11 DTD.24.12.2011 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
P3:	COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMO SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY NO.GAY/5886/2012 DTD.6.12.2011.
P4:	COPY OF THE REPLY NO.GA7/5886/12 DTD.4.2.2012 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
P5:	COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.14.12.2012 AP 277(2)/2012/SIC FILE NO.1928/SIC-G1/2012 PASSED BY THE KERALA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION.
P6:	COPY OF THE REPLY NO.R23/JSK/RIA/2271/AA DTD.5.2.2013 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
P7:	COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED NIL FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
P8:	COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT NO.R23/JSK/RIA/2271/11 DTD.9.4.2013 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
P9:	COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.15.10.2013 CC NO.95/2013 FILED ON 4.3.2013 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
P10:	COPY OF THE ORDER DTD.16.9.2015 IN CC NO.94/2013 FILED ON 4.3.2013 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
P11:	COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD.21.3.2016.
RESPOND	ENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL.

¶20

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE

¶21

¶22

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶23

W.P.(C). NO. 13937 OF 2016

¶24

Dated this the 04^th day of November, 2016

¶25

JUDGMENT

¶26

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext. P9 order passed by the third respondent, whereby petitioner was directed to pay the first respondent Rs. 3,000/- as compensation, and Rs. 1,000/- as costs, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which petitioner was made liable for payment of 12% interest for the whole amount. The subject issue in the complaint filed before the Consumer Forum is relating to a course of action that has arisen under the Right to Information Act. The allegations made by the first respondent in the said complaint is that the information sought for by the first respondent was not provided by the Information Officer. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that the Consumer Forum is not vested with powers, to entertain such an application, when there is a

¶27

W.P.(C). NO. 13937 OF 2016 2

¶28

statutory remedy prescribed under Section 23 of the Right to Information Act to prefer an appeal, if no information is filed by the Information Officer. It is in this background seeking to quash Ext. P9 order passed by the third respondent, this writ petition is filed

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Even though notice is served on the first respondent, there is no appearance. The service of notice to the first respondent was declared by this Court, as per order dated 26.10.2016 also.

¶30

The question to be considered in this writ petition is whether any manner of interference is warranted in Ext. P9 order passed by the third respondent. True, under the Consumer Protection Act, there is an appeal provided under law. However, if the subject issue, under the consideration of the Consumer Forum was without jurisdiction, the same can only be termed as illegal and arbitrary. I find from Ext. P9 order that the petitioner did not appear before the third respondent and contest the

¶31

W.P.(C). NO. 13937 OF 2016 3

¶32

proceeding. Even though the Consumer Forum understood the jurisdictional aspect, it proceeded to pass an order finally, also taking note of the fact that the petitioner did not appear before the Forum. However, Ext. P10 order passed by the very same Forum in C.C. No. 94/2013 dated 16.09.2015, shows that under similar circumstances, the complaint was dismissed, holding that the remedy of the complainant therein is to approach the authority prescribed, under the Right to Information Act.

¶33

Taking note of the entire fact situations and reckoning the provisions of law, I am of the considered opinion that Ext. P9 order passed by the third respondent is without jurisdiction and therefore arbitrary and illegal. Accordingly, I set aside Ext. P9.

¶34

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶35

SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶36

DCS

Vincent E. v. Ravikrishnan N.R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vincent E. v. Ravikrishnan N.R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Malabar Cements Ltd. Vs Sri.K.Kadirvel

Anish.M.K Vs Dist.Collector, Alappuzha

English Indian Clays Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

G.Haridasa Sarma Vs Additional Tahsildar

Shereef Bappu Vs the State of Kerala

P.Balan Nair Vs the Deputy Director of Education, Neduvannaur