Complaints involving the Right To Information Act are not maintainable before the Consumer Forum, and the complainant is not considered a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.

ORDER :

THIRU J. JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai [North] in C.M.P No. 43/2013 and C.C. No. 269/2012, dated 3.10.2013, allowing CMP No. 43/2013 and consequently rejecting the complaint.

2. The case of the complainant is that he sought some information relating to Apollo Hospital, under the Right To Information Act, which was not provided by the opposite party, and hence the complaint.

3. According to the opposite party, the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.

4. The opposite party filed C.M.P. No. 43/2013 seeking to reject the complaint as not maintainable.

5. The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the CMP, and consequently rejected the complaint. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant has preferred this appeal.

6. First of all, we have to decide whether the Consumer Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and whether the complaint is maintainable.

7. It is settled law that any application involving RTI Act does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and other Forums are specifically barred.

8. The Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Kalim Ram v. State Public Information Officer-cum-Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, reported in IV (2013) CPJ 300 (NC) has laid down that complaint involving RTI Act is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum/Commission, in which it is held as follows:

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Sections 2(1)(d), 21(b) — Right to Information Act, 2005 — Section 19 — Consumer — Information from Public Information Officer — Complainant cannot be considered as ‘Consumer’ under Consumer Protection Act since there is remedy available for complainant to approach appellate authority under Section 19 of RTI Act, 2005 — Complaint not maintainable.”

9. “22. Act to have over riding effect—The provision of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding, anything inconsistent therewith contained in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923), and any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. From this, it is beyond doubt that this Act, however, has an overriding effect in that the authorities under this Act may make independent decisions about the question whether such disclosure or non-disclosure has any overriding public interest. Therefore, it may become necessary for the authorities to independently decide whether disclosure of information which itself being an act done in public interest, overweighs the public interests ought to be protected under those enactments.”

10. “23. Bar of Jurisdiction of Courts—No Court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made under this Act, and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act.”

11. The Hon’ble National Commission has further held as follows:

“This view stands emboldened by a recent judgment by a Bench consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Malik and Hon’ble Dr. B.C. Gupta in the case of Smt. Tasleem Bint Hussain v. The State Public Information Officer, Revision Petition No. 737 of 2013 decided on 1st March, 2013 and the judgment rendered by a Bench headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, President, in the case of T. Pundalika v. Revenue Department (Service Division) Government of Karnataka, RP No. 4061 of 2010, decided on 31.3.2011.”

12. The Hon’ble National Commission, in the case of S. Dorai Raj v. Divisional Personnel Officer & Nodal Public Information Officer, Southern Railway, Mudurai & Anr., (sic), reported in I (2014) CPJ 444 (NC), has held as follows:

“The RTI Act is a Code in itself. It provides for remedies available under this Act to a person who has been denied any information. Since, petitioner has specific remedy available to him under the RTI Act and which he has already availed, the consumer complaint does