The specific remedy available under the RTI Act and the limitations period for filing a complaint influenced the court's decision.

ORDER :

1. Present petition has been received by post on 28.12.2012. Thereafter, Petitioner has not appeared till date. However, petitioner had sent an application stating that he is unable to appear before this Commission and may be allowed to file its written submissions. Accordingly, petitioner has sent its written submissions by post which was received on 30.4.2013.

2. We have gone through the record as well as written submissions sent by the petitioner.

3. Petitioner/Complainant had filed a Consumer Complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal. Forum, Collectorate Campus, Coimbatore-18 (for short, ‘District Forum’) alleging deficiency of service on the part of Respondent No. 1/opposite party, as it has failed to provide information sought by him in his application dated 7.3.2012, under Right to Information Act, 2005.

4. District Forum, vide order dated 13.7.2012 dismissed the complaint observing as under:

“6. Since the complainant has not pleaded any deficiency in service by the courier at Mettupalayam viz. the second opposite party, the complainant cannot file this complaint before this Forum at Coimbatore as the first opposite party against whom the relief is sought for having office at Madurai and the cause of action has also arisen at Madurai.

7. Hence, we hold that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. In view of the matter, the complaint is returned to the complainant with a direction to file it before the concerned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum having jurisdiction.”

5. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed First appeal No. 472 of 2012 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (for short, ‘State Commission’). The State Commission, vide its impugned order dated 23.8.2012, dismissed the appeal and held:

“We have perused the materials, and on careful consideration of the prayer made, we are of the view that the order passed by the District Forum is well founded. In a similar matter in RP. No. 4061/2010, date 31.3.2011, in T. Pundalika v. Revenue Department (Service Division), Government of Karnataka, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that the petitioner cannot be claimed to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, and further when there is a remedy available for him to approach the appellate authority under Section 19 of RTI Act, the prayer of the appellant cannot be entertained. The same facts are applicable to the case on our hand also. Under such circumstances the appeal deserves rejection.”

6. Various judgments as referred by the petitioner in its written submissions, are not applicable to the facts of the present case at all.

7. This Commission in B. Vasudeva Shetty v. The Chief Manager, Kota Co-operative Agricultural Bank Ltd., II (2013) CPJ 4B (NC) (CN), in Revision Petition No. 3636 of 2012, decided on 25.2.2013, held:

“12. As per petitioner’s case, he has sought information under the RTI Act from the respondent for the first time in the year 2005. For the second time petitioner sought information in the year 2006. However, the complaint before the District Forum was filed by the petitioner on 20.5.2010. Thus, on the face of it, the complaint filed by the petitioner before the District Forum is hopelessly barred by limitation and it is liable to be dismissed on this short ground.

13. Even on merits, petitioner has no case. State Commission in the impugned order observed:

“6. First of all it is the duty of the appellant to prove that, there existence any relationship of a ‘Consumer’, and ‘Service Provider’ with the respondent. So under the RTI Act, the appellant is entitled to see a required information for his benefit as the respondent is a public officer. If the required information or copies are not furnished then the remedy is available for him to approach the Appellate Authority under the RTI Act. First of all, the complaint filed before the DF in our view is not maintainable. No doubt that, in para 22 of the order, the DF has refe