Facts
The Appellant filed an RTI Application on 11th December 2017. The application was about the non-payment of fees by the Appellant as he was handling and disposing of two suits before the Patna City Court, on behalf of CCRUM. The Appellant paid fees from January 2015 to February 2017. However, bills from 28th February 2017 to July 2017 remain outstanding.
The CPIO responded to the RTI application with a pointwise reply sent to the Appellant. The Appellant wasn’t satisfied with the response made by the CPIO. So, the Appellant filed for a First Appeal on 16th January 2018. The FAA Order on 20th February 2018 provided more clarity to the queries in the RTI Application. The Appellant wasn’t satisfied with the FAA’s Order. So, he filed for a Second Appeal. The Central Information Commission (CIC) received the Second Appeal on 6th March 2019.
Arguments Advanced
The Commission received an email from the FAA stating that the tenure of the CPIO who was a part of this case had ended. The email was a request about whether the new CPIO could take part in the hearing of the case. The Commission granted the request.
The Appellant and the Respondent were present during the hearing through audio conferencing. The Appellant was aggrieved because his bill was reduced on grounds of inflation. The Respondent stated that the changes made in the bills were in accordance with the fee schedule provided by the Ministry of Law and Justice. The Respond further added that Rs 1,24,050 had been paid to the Appellant for his services.
Court Observation
The Central Information Commission observes that none of the provisions in the RTI Act, 2005 deal with grievance redressal or justification or explanation for performing an act. In Order to prove this, the Commission used the Delhi High Court case of Hansi Rawat &Anr. vs Punjab National Bank &Ors. In the case, the judge states that the provisions of the RTI Act do not involve adjudication of disputes.
Decision
The Commission stated that the Respondent had provided a proper, well-defined response to the Appellant. The Commission further added that the Appellant needs to approach some other forum for grievance redressal as this Commission will not be able to help him with it. Hence, this appeal had been dismissed.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.
