O R D E R:

Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated 24.01.2024 passed by learned District Consumer Commission, Shimla in Consumer Complaint No.186/2022, titled as Ashish Sharma vs Ashok Sharma and Ors. whereby, the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

Brief facts of Case:

2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that the complainant has served as a Computer Teacher in Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?

Dayanand Public School, The Mall, Shimla and under RTI Act the complainant demanded certain information from the opposite party No.1 on 26.10.2021 and fees was charged for the service under RTI Act, which was duly paid but the information was not supplied to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant applied to the opposite party No.2 on 11.12.2021 for the same, but till date no information was provided. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 failed to provide service in a stipulated time and opposite party No.3 has not taken any action as per service rules. Due to deficiency in service by the opposite parties the complainant lost his JOB from which he was having income of Rs.55,000/- per month. The aforesaid acts on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The opposite party No.1 resisted and contested the complaint by filing reply and alleged that the documents sought by the complainant under RTI Act 2005 were submitted by the complainant in the office itself and same were returned to him. Complainant was working in a privately managed school i.e. Dayanand Public School, The Mall, Shimla and as per Bye-laws of the Central Board of School Education, all the appointments and dismissal of service of the teaching and Non teaching staff in the privately managed schools are made by the management of that school. The complainant had not lost his job due to opposite party No.1 and matter of RTI comes under the jurisdiction of Hon'ble State Information Commission, Shimla, and the complainant had also filed appeals before the Competent Authority i.e. Hon'ble State Information Commission Shimla. There is neither any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No. 1 and prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

4. The complaint so filed was also opposed by the opposite parties No. 2 and 3 by filing their separate replies wherein they have alleged that the complainant willfully and intentionally had not arrayed officials of the Dayanand Public School, Shimla and information sought for by the complainant is under the custody of Principal, Dayanand Public School, Shimla. The information sought by the complainant under RTI Act, 2005 related to Dayanand Public School, from the opposite party No.1, being a PIO of Privately Managed Schools of District Shimla. Opposite party No.1 sought that information from the Principal, Dayanand Public School, The Mall Shimla, but the Principal has refused to give the information because as per him his institution is not a Public Authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Complainant had not filed proper appeal under RTI Act, 2005 to the First Appellate Authority. Thereafter, according to the provisions contained in the RTI Act, 2005, the complainant filed second complaint/appeals before the competent authority and the same were decided on 14.03.2022 and 25.06.2022. There is neither any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No. 2 and 3 and prayed that complaint may be dismissed.

5. Rejoinder denying the contents of the replies filed by the opposite parties and reiterating those of the complaint has been filed.

6. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

7. After hearing the parties, learned District Commission below dismissed the complaint of the complainant.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the appell