STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MADHYA PRADESH FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/23/FA/13/1981 CENTRAL PUBLIC INFROMATION PRESENT ADDRESS - NULL,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus SUBHASH PRESENT ADDRESS - NULL,MADHYA PRADESH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. DR. MONIKA MALIK , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

CENTRAL PUBLIC INFROMATION FOR THE RESPONDENT:

SUBHASH DATED: 26/09/2025

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 1981 OF 2013 (Arising out of order dated 20.08.2013 passed in C.C.No. 145/2012 by District Commission, Burhanpur)

CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND DEPUTY MANAGER (ESTT & ADMN)

NEPA LIMITED, REGD. OFFICE-NEPA NAGAR, TEHSIL-NEPA NAGAR, DISTRICT-BURHANPUR (M.P.) … APPELLANT.

Versus SUBHASH SAPKALE, S/O SHRI TRIYAMBAK SAPKALE, R/O PLOT NO.90, WARD NO.21, TEHSIL-NEPA NAGAR, DISTRICT-BURHANPUR (M.P.) ... RESPONDENT.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. MONIKA MALIK : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Vijay Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

O R D E R

(Passed On 26.09.2025)

Per Say Justice Sunita Yadav, President:

This is an appeal by the opposite party/appellant against the order dated

20.08.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Burhanpur (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C. No. 145/2012 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent has been allowed.

2. The case of the complainant/respondent is that he vide his application dated 30.08.2012 had applied to the opposite party/appellant under provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short RTI Act) and sought information i.e. names of those officers and workers who on date were allotted double quarters and number of officers and workers against whom action has been taken and no action has been taken along with their names, department, post, salary, sequence, quarter no. along with sector number. Further in Nepa Mills Estate Office how many workers, officers and class-IV employees who were granted compassionate appointment with their names, post, salary, department, duration of their job along with their salary slips. Further the information regarding boundaries of Nepa Mills Estate and the lease duration if any was also sought. It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite party/appellant provided incomplete information answer to specific questions which amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite party/appellant filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief in form of compensation and costs.

3. The opposite party/appellant contested the case by filing reply denying the averments made in the complaint. It was submitted that the opposite party/appellant has not suppressed any information and has been provided the complete information on the basis of available records. In fact the complainant/respondent portrays himself to be a social worker and requested the Estate Officer of the Nepa Mills for allotment of quarter for his residence. Since due to non-availability of quarter at that time, the quarter could not allotted to the complainant/respondent and as soon the quarter was available, the complainant was apprised to deposit 6 months’ rent in advance and to execute agreement. Since the complainant failed to comply the aforesaid conditions, he was not allotted quarter and because of this reason being annoyed with the officers of the Nepa Limited, he filed this frivolous complaint. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party/appellant and it was thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to give detailed information sought in clause 1 and 2 of the application dated 30.08.2012 to the complainant within 30 days. Compensation of Rs.2,000/- is also directed to be pai