JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. The key question swirls around the controversy, whether there lies a rub for the Consumer fora to entertain the case pertaining to Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short RTI Act. Both the fora below have come to the conclusion that, although, they have no powers, yet they have granted Rs.1,000/-, as compensation to the complainant. 2. Tarun Agarwal, the complainant/respondent sought RTI report from the Public Information Officer, Urban Improvement Trust, Ajmer, petitioner/OP. Proper application was moved along with statutory fee in the sum of Rs.10/-, through Postal Order. However, the Petitioner/ OP did not do the needful within the stipulated period of 30 days. Thereafter, after three months, incomplete information was provided. But, information in respect of Point Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6 was not provided. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum, though, admitted that the remedies were available and there is no provision for compensation for deficit services and for such matters, complaint is not maintainable. The complainant had asked for a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The same was denied but, strangely, granted a normal amount of compensation in the sum of Rs.1,000/-, to the complainant. 3. Aggrieved by that order, First Appeal was filed Petitioner/OP, before the State Commission. There was delay of 150 days. It was -1- explained that the petitioner had filed a Writ Petition before the Honle High Court of Rajasthan, which was ultimately dismissed. Consequently, the delay occurred. 4. It appears that the State Commission had not condoned the delay. The State Commission passed the following order:- aving considered the entire facts and circumstances, in our opinion, on the face of it, there appears to be sheer misuse of public money which, in no manner, can be appreciated by any court of law. For a meager amount of Rs.1,000/- the appellants have first approached the High Court and then has come to this Commission. Without making any further observation on merits, we deem it proper to dismiss the appeal on delay as also on merits and further direct the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) in the Consumer Welfare Fund, within thirty days 5. Thereafter, this revision petition has been filed. Again, there was delay of 19 days. In the application for condonation of delay, it was explained, in paras (iv), (v), (vi) & (vii), as under :- (iv) that at that time there was no Officer working in the Legal Wing of U.I.T, Ajmer and the post of Secretary, UIT, Ajmer was also vacant, as such the opinion of the counsel without comments from the legal wing could not be placed before the competent authority for taking a decision in regard to filing of the revision petition before Honle National Commission. (v) That, on 19.07.2013, Mr. Hazari Ram Sirvi was posted as Assistant Legal Remembrance and the opinion of counsel for UIT, along with the legal comments from legal wing was placed before the Secretary, UIT, Ajmer, on 25.07.2013 and after approval of Secretary, the management of the UIT, Ajmer vide order dated 25.07.2012 decided to file a writ petition against the order impugned dated 05.04.2013. (vi) In compliance of the said decision, OIC of the case contacted the counsel for UIT on 29.07.2013 as 27.07.2013 and 28.07.2013 were holidays and handed over the complete record to him for filing of the revision petition. Thereafter, the revision petition was prepared, got signed by the OIC on 31.07.2013 and is filed before this Honle Commission. It is germane to mention here that in the intervening period, i.e., before taking of the decision to file revision petition, the orders of Honle State Commission and the learned District Forum have been complied with. (vii) That the appellant is not going to derive any benefit by delaying the appeal. The delay in filing the appeal is not intentional rather the same is bonafide and due to reasons mentioned above. Therefore, the appellant could not reach to Honle Commission, within time for redressal of its grievance and delay in filing revision petition deserves to be condoned 6. The respondent was served but none is present. However, we have received his reply which has been taken on record. The respondent/complainant, in his written submissions has invited our attention towards Trans Mediterranean Airways Vs. Universal Exports & Anr., reported in 2011 (8) MLJ 570, wherein it was held that the protection provided under Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to consumers is in addition to the remedies available under any other statute. It does not extinguish the remedies under another statute but provides an additional or alternative remedy. 7. The complainant has also cited another authority reported in Skypak Couriers Ltd. Vs. Tata Chemicals Ltd., 2000 (3) MLJ 74. 8. For the reasons detailed above in the application for condonation of delay, we hereby condone the delay. 9. We do not locate substance in the arguments advanced by the respondent/complainant. First of all, Sections 22 & 23 of the RTI Act, 2005 are crystal clear, and the same are hereby reproduced:- 2. Act to have overriding 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 on 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 interest sought to be protected under those enactments. 23. Bar of Jurisdiction of Courts :- No court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceeding in respect of any order made this Act, and no such order shall be called in question otherwise than by way of an appeal under this Act 10. The Commission is certainly not armed with the powers under the RTI Act. It cannot arrogate the powers which do not vest with it. We are supposed to exercise our powers within the parameters of Law. Instead of wasting the precious time of this Commission, the petitioner should approach the proper forum. 11. This view stands emboldened by the following authorities. T.Pundalika Vs. Revenue Department (Service Division) Government of Karnataka, RP No. 4061 of 2010, decided on 31.03.2011, by the Bench Headed by Honle Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, President, wherein it was held :- espondent, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been allowed by observing thus:- t the outset, it is not in dispute that complainant had filed an application u/s 6 & 7 of the Right to Information Act to the OP No.4. But complainant cannot be considered as a onsumeras defined under the C.P.Act since there is a remedy available for the complainant to approach the appellate authority u/s 19 of the RTI Act, 2005 e agree with the view taken by the fora below. Petitioner cannot be claimed to be a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. There is a remedy available for him to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. Dismissed 12. Similar view was taken by another judgment of this Commission, reported in Shonkh Technologies Ltd. Vs. Tushar Mandlekar, IV (2009) CPJ 280 (NC). Para No. 6 of the said judgment is relevant, which is reproduced below:- That apart, since registration of a vehicle under Form 23-A is in accordance with notification dated 27.11.2002, challenging its validity which is shown to be the object, behind securing copy of the agreement, its validity was not a question to be adjudicated by Consumer Fora. Added to this, after respondent has lost its move to secure copy of the agreement in question under the Right to Information Act, before a Competent Authority also the Appellate Authority, this Commission cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction sitting over the decisions rendered by these two authorities as after availing one remedy prescribed under the statue taking recourse to Consumer Grievance Redressal Agency hoping for further relief was not permissible. The Government of Maharashtra rightly in our view preferred to withhold the document instead of getting it public. The impugned orders in both the Revision Petitions 598 of 2009 and 599 of 2009 are accordingly set aside and both the Revision Petitions succeed 13. Again, this Commission also took the same view in RP 3276/2012, Pothireddipalli Sugunavati Vs. Territory Manager, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., decided on 14.01.2013. 14. Counsel for the petitioner cited another judgment reported in B.Vasudeva Shetty Vs. Chief Manager, Kota Co-operative Agricultural Bank Ltd., RP 3636 of 2012, decided on 25.02.2013. 15. Again, Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005, provides procedure for appeal. The arguments put forward by the complainant are not convincing.

16. Under these circumstances, we set aside the orders passed by the fora below and dismiss the complaint and give liberty to the complainant to approach the civil court/appropriate forum, as per law. The revision petition is dismissed. ......................J J.M. MALIK PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER