District
: South 24 Parganas.
Before
the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, at Alipore, South 24
Parganas.
Complaint
Case no. 318 of 2013.
In
the matter of :
Shri
Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Son of Shri Jayram Singh, residing at premises being no.
95 ( 331 ), Rai Bahadur Road, Kolkata – 700 053, Police Station – Behala,
District – South 24 Parganas.
________Applicant /
Petitioner.
-
Versus –
1.
The Secretary, South 24 Parganas
Regulated Market Committee, having it’s address as S.D. Chatterjee Road,
Baruipur, Kolkata – 700 144, Police Station – Baruipur, District – South 24
Parganas.
2.
The Public Information Officer, South
24 Parganas Regulated Market Committee, having it’s address as S.D. Chatterjee
Road, Baruipur, Kolkata – 700 144, Police Station – Baruipur, District – South
24 Parganas.
______Respondents /
Opposite Parties.
Evidence
on Affidavit
By
the Complainant
Sri
Sanjeev Kumar Singh;
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit
of Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Son of Shri Jayram Singh, aged about _______years,
by faith Hindu, by Occupation Business, residing at premises being no. 95
(331), Rai Bahadur Road, Kolkata – 700 053, Police Station – Behala, District – South 24 Parganas.
I,
the above deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under :-
1
That I am the petitioner in the above
case, thoroughly conversant with the facts and circumstances of the present
case and am competent to swear this affidavit.
2
That the South 24 Parganas Regulated
Market Committee, is a body under Agricultural Marketing Department, Govt. of
West Bengal, constituted under the West Bengal Agricultural Produce Marketing (
Regulation ) Act’ 1972, having it’s office at S.D. Chatterjee Road, Baruipur,
Kolkata – 700 144, Police Station – Baruipur, District – South 24 Parganas, and
whereas the Respondents / opposite Parties are the office bearer of the South
24 Parganas Regulated Market Committee, and it’s well fall under the
territorial jurisdiction of the Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, at Alipore, South 24 Parganas.
3
That I made an application under
Section 6 of the Right to Information Act’ 2005, to the Secretary, South 24
Parganas Regulated Market Committee, having it’s Office at S.D. Chatterjee
Road, Baruipur, Kolkata – 700 144, Police Station Baruipur, District – South 24
Parganas, Vide application dated 7th day of March’ 2013, and whereas
duly affixed the Court fees of Rs. 10/- ( Rupees Ten )only on the said
application towards the fees for such application, and also made one another
application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act’ 2005, to the Public
Information Officer, South 24 Parganas Regulated Market Committee, having it’s
Office at S.D. Chatterjee Road, Baruipur, Kolkata – 700 144, Police Station
Baruipur, District – South 24 Parganas, Vide application dated 7th
day of March’ 2013, and whereas duly affixed the Court fees of Rs. 10/- (
Rupees Ten )only on the said application towards the fees for such application.
The both the application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act’ 2005,
has been served through Speed Post with A/D, and whereas the A/D return back
upon services by the Postal Department, which shows the services as to receipt
with the Seal and Signature of the Respondents / Opposite Parties.
“A”
[ Xerox copy of the said application
under Section 6 of the RTI ACT, dated 7th day of March’ 2013, to the
Secretary and to the Public Information Officer, are enclosed herewith and
collectively marked as Annexure “A” ]
4
That on 3rd day of April’
2013, I am in receipt of an reply, Vide Memo no. 74 dated 02-04-2013, which has
been served through one of the employee of the South 24 Parganas Regulated
Market Committee, through hand delivery, wherein The Secretary, South 24
Parganas Regulated Market Committee, provided part information as to Details of
the employee engaged in the South 24 Parganas Regulated Market Committee,
during the year 2012, and wherein in such memo, the Secretary of the South 24
Parganas Regulated Market Committee, seeks 45 days to provide remaining
information and also asked me to visit the office along with ID proof, on 5th
day of April’ 2013, at about 1.00 p.m. for clarification of queries.
“B”
[ Xerox copy of the Memo no. 74 dated
02-04-2013, is enclosing herewith and marked as Annexure “B” ]
5
That I replied against such memo no.
74, dated 02-04-2013, vide Letter dated 04-04-2013, through Speed Post, to the
Secretary, South 24 Parganas Regulated Market Committee.
“C”
[ Xerox copy of the Letter dated
04-04-2013, is enclosing herewith and marked as Annexure “C” ]
6
That I state that in the hand delivery
of the reply and or letter, by the Secretary, South 24 Perganas Regulated
Market Committee, the said Letter and or Memo was opened and not in any
envelop, and therefore the manner and purported acts of causing services of
reply of notices and or letters under the Right to Information Act’ 2005,
through one of the employee of the South 24 Perganas Regulated Market
Committee, is an established acts of out of jurisdiction as emphasize in the
Right to Information Act’ 2005.
7
That I state that the disclosure of my
name and address to the other employee of the department of the South 24
Perganas Regulated Market Committee by the Secretary, and or by the acts and
omission of the Secretary, such acts and omission is a violation of the
provisions as laid down under the Right to Information Act’ 2005.
8
That the Part information, which has
been provided through Memo no. 74, dated 02-04-2013, is not in accordance with
the Law, and more particularly not in accordance with the query as put forth by
me, under the proviso of Section 6 of the Right to Information Act’ 2005.
9
That I state that asking to visit with
the ID proof at the office premises of the South 24 Perganas Regulated Market
Committee, is not a prescribed acts under any proviso of the Right to
Information Act’ 2005, rather such an acts of the Secretary, South 24 Perganas
Regulated Market Committee, is an edavour towards the disclosure of my name and
identification, to the other employee and or staff of the South 24 Perganas
Regulated Market Committee.
10 That
I states that such a purported activities in the name of clarification of
query, has been adopted by the Secretary, South 24 Perganas Regulated Market
Committee, as to place undue influences, coercion, duress upon me, so, that I
should not seek any information, and also to put me into fear of harm, so that I
should not seek any information from the Secretary, South 24 Perganas Regulated
Market Committee, and to act against purported activities of the respondents /
opposite parties.
11 That
I state and submits that the Secretary, South 24 Perganas Regulated Market
Committee, being a public authority, he should not disclose the name and
address and more particularly my identification to the other employee and or
staff of the South 24 Perganas Regulated Market Committee, and not even the
content of my such application, and to keep such application under the safe
custody of his authority, and to provide information in accordance with the
Right to Information Act’ 2005.
12 That
I state and submits that the respondent seeking
another 45 days to provide the information which is not permissible
under the Law. The mandate of 30 days has been enshrined under the legislature
and confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court of India. Thus questions for further
time does not arise in providing information under the Right to Information Act
2005.
13 That
I state and submits that since, my query are not in the nature of complaint,
the visitation as asked by the Secretary, South 24 Perganas Regulated Market
Committee, is not desirable at all, and more particularly, not in accordance with
any proviso of the right to Information Act 2005.
14 That
thereafter on 17-04-2013, I have been served through hand delivery by one of
the employee of the South 24 Parganas Regulated Market Committee, a Letter
being Memo no. 85, dated 17-04-2013, which has been issued by the Secretary,
South 24 Parganas Regulated Market Committee, wherein he again provided a part
information as to Audit report related to the period of 2008 – 2009, 2009 –
2010, and 2010 – 2011, and informed as “ further information is under process
and it will ready for preparation for submit to you shortly”.
“D”
[ Xerox copy of the Memo no. 85, dated
17-04-2013, is enclosing herewith and marked as Annexure “D” ]
15 That
I state that thereafter no information has ever been provided by the Secretary,
South 24 Perganas Regulated Market Committee, and or by the Public Information
Officer, of the South 24 Perganas Regulated Market Committee, till the day of
28th day of April’ 2013.
16 That
on 29th day of April’ 2013, I preferred a First Appeal under the
proviso of Section 19 (1) of the Right to Information Act’ 2005, addressed to
the Appellate Authority, of the South 24 Perganas Regulated Market Committee,
having it’s address as S.D. Chatterjee Road, Baruipur, Kolkata – 700 144,
Police Station Baruipur, District – South 24 Perganas., arising out of the
application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act’ 2005, which has
been made as on 7th day of March’ 2013, and whereas the said
application has been received by the Secretary, South 24 Perganas Regulated
Market Committee, and by the Public Information Officer, of the South 24
Perganas Regulated Market Committee, as on 8th day of March’ 2013,
as shown and appeared from the signature and seal on the A/D Card of the postal
services.
“E”
[ Xerox copy of the First Appeal under Section
19(1) of the RTI ACT 2005, is enclosing herewith and marked as Annexure “E” ]
17 That
thereafter on receipt of the said First Appeal under Section 19 (1) of the
Right to Information Act’ 2005, one Letter being Memo no. 101, dated
13-05-2013, has been served to me through hand delivery, by one of the employee
of the South 24 Perganas Regulated Market Committee, on 14-05-2013, at my
premises, wherein I was called to appear before the undersigned for hearing in
the Chamber of the Additional District Magistrate ( General ), South 24
Perganas, at Alipore, on 17-05-2013, at 4 p.m., and whereas therein the signed
has been done by the Secretary Shri Tamal Das, as appeared in the said Letter
being Memo No. 101, dated 13-05-2013, and below his signature, it has been
engraved as the Additional District Magistrate ( General ), South 24 Perganas, &
Appellate Authority, South 24 Perganas Regulated Market Committee, which shows
clearly a purposive letter issued by the Secretary, South 24 Perganas Regulated
Market Committee, in the name of the
Additional District Magistrate ( General ), South 24 Perganas, &
Appellate Authority, South 24 Perganas Regulated Market Committee.
“F”
[ Xerox copy of the Memo no. 101,
dated 13-05-2013, is enclosing herewith and marked as Annexure “F” ]
18 That
therefore Letter being Memo no. 101, dated 13-05-2013, is an even whereas Shri
Tamal Das, Secretary, South 24 Perganas Regulated Market Committee, pretends to
hold Office of the Additional District Magistrate ( General ) South 24
Perganas, Alipore, as a Public Servant of such capacity in the Public
Administration, knowing that he does not hold such office or falsly personate
the authority of the Additional District Magistrate ( General ) South 24
Perganas, Alipore, holding such offices, and in assumed character does or
attempts to do the act of delivery of such memo no. 101, dated 13-05-2013,
asking for hearing in the Chamber of the Additional District Magistrate (
General ), South 24 Perganas, Alipore, under colour of such office, is an
established act of personating the office of the Additional District Magistrate
( General ), South 24 Perganas, Alipore, by Shri Tamal Das, Secretary, South 24
Perganas Regulated Market Committee.
19 That
I wrote a letter dated 15th day of May’ 2013, to the Additional
District Magistrate ( General ) South 24 Perganas, Alipore, stating inter alia
all the facts as appeared from such memo no. 101, dated 13-05-2013, and want to
know whether any such hearing as has been stated in the said memo, has ever
organized in his chamber at the given date and time, and on such confirmation only,
I was eager to be appear before the authority of the Additional District
Magistrate ( General ) South 24 Perganas, Alipore.
“G”
[ Xerox copy of the Letter dated 15th
day of May’ 2013, is enclosing herewith and marked as Annexure “G” ]
20 That
I did not get any reply from the office of the Additional District Magistrate (
General ) South 24 Perganas, Alipore, and therefore I did not attend the
hearing if any at his office.
21 That
I state that thereafter the Appellate Authority of the South 24 Perganas Regulated
Market Committee, did not answer of the query and did not provide any
information of the questions under the Right to Information Act’ 2005.
22 That
I state that the Respondent did not supply total information nor replied in
accordance with the proviso of section 7 (1) of the Right to Information Act’
2005, till filing of the present application, before the Hon’ble District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, at Alipore, South 24 Perganas.
23 That
I state that the Respondent supplied incomplete and or defective information,
as stated herein above in the forgoing paragraphs of the present application.
24 That
thus there has been gross deficiency in services and or supply of incomplete
information by the Respondents / Opposite Parties.
25 That
I being the Complainant is a Consumer under Section 2 (1) (o) of the Consumer
Protection Act’ 1986, Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
in revision petition No. 1975 ( In appeal no. No. 244 / 04 relating to
complaint of Dr. S.P. Thirumala Rao – Versus – Municipal Commissioner, Mysore
), interalia decided on 28-05-2009, that the applicant under RTI Act is a
Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986.
26 That
I also humbly invites kind attention of this Hon’ble Forum to the important
Judgment dated 05-11-1993, of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Lucknow
Development Authority – Versus – M.K.Gupta ( 1994 AIR 787, 1994 SCC (1) 243),
wherein the Apex Court held that when public servants by malafide,
oppressive and capricious acts in performance of official duty causes injustice
harassment and agony to common man, renders the State or its instrumentality
liable to pay damages to the person aggrieved. And the State or its
instrumentality is duty bound to recover the amount of compensation so paid from
the public servant concerned.
27 That
this complaint is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Forum, as
the Respondents / Opposite Parties have their Offices at the addresses as
mentioned aforesaid, in the cause title of this application.
28 That I state and submits that I am a victim of
the purported acts and deficiency in services at the instances of the opposite
parties and the acts of the opposite parties as well as the facts are well
constitute the deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties.
29 That I state and submits that the respondents
/ opposite parties, shall also pay the compensation due to me for the
harassment, troubles, physical inconvenience and mental agony arising directly
out of the breach of duty on the part of the respondents / opposite parties. I
assesses such loss and damages at Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rupees Five lakhs ) only.
30 That I states and submits that the purported
activities of the respondents established deficiency in services, which is
contrary to the Law.
31 That I States and submits that from all of the
statements made above, it is very clear that the opposite parties are guilty of
deficiency in service as meant in the Consumer Protection Act.
32 The Cause of action for the present proceeding
arose on 03-04-2013, 18-04-2013, and 14-05-2013, and continued as such the
total information has not been provide by the Opposite Parties / Respondents to
me.
33 That the instant application / Petition, is
within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, at Alipore, South 24-Parganas.
34 That the present complaint is being filed
within the period as prescribed under section 24 A, of the Consumer Protection
Act.
35 That I am praying for the following relief/s,
before the Hon’ble Forum :
a)
To direct the opposite parties /
respondents to supply correct and complete information sought by the applicant
/ petitioner, vide his Letter dated 7th day of March’ 2013;
b)
To direct the opposite parties to pay
compensation, as for the harassment, troubles, loss of business, physical
inconvenience and mental agony, suffered by the petitioner from the purported
activities and others by the opposite party as assessed as Rs. 5,00,000/- (
Rupees Five Lakhs ) only to your petitioner;
c)
To grant the cost of the proceedings ;
d)
To grant any other relief to the
applicant / petitioner as found out by your Honour, in the facts and
circumstances of the Complaint.
e)
And to pass such other necessary order
or orders as your Honour , may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice.
36 That
the facts contained in my accompanying complaint / application, the contents of
which have not been repeated herein for the sake of brevity may be read as an
integral part of this affidavit and are true and correct to my knowledge.
DEPONENT
Verification
I,
the above named deponent do hereby solemnly verify that the contents of my
above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, and as variably derived
from the record, and believe as no part of it is false and nothing material has
been concealed therein.
Verified
this ………….the day of …………….2013, at the Alipore, South 24-Parganas.
DEPONENT
Identified
by me,
Advocate.
Prepared
in my Chamber,
Advocate.
Dated
:………………………..…2013.
Place
: Alipore, South 24-Parganas.
N O T A R Y
No comments:
Post a Comment