Central Information Commission
Pritam Bhattacharya vs Bar Council Of India on 7 May, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BCOIN/A/2023/602676
Shri Pritam Bhattacharya ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Bar Council of India, New Delhi ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 03.05.2024
Date of Decision : 03.05.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 14.11.2022
PIO replied on : - -
First Appeal filed on : 14.12.2022
First Appellate Order on : - -
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 08.01.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 14.11.2022 seeking information on following points:-
a. Copy of memo 3268 dated 26/5/22 and order dated 21/4/22 passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the BCI.
b. Front page of my complaint dated 3/11/21 registered against advRudranil De &ors at Bar Council of India.
c. Copy of memo DCLD/146/2022 (DC Misc) dated 18/6/22 and order of the Disciplinary Committee of the BCI.
d. Front page of my complaint dated 4/11/21 registered against advJoya Sarkar &ors at Bar Council of India.
e. Copy of memo DCLD/197/2022 (DC Misc) dated 18/6/22 and order of the Disciplinary Committee of the BCI.
f. Case Registration Sheet of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of West Bengal i.c.w. memo DCLD/146/2022 (DC Misc) dated 18/6/2022 of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India. g. Enquiry report of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of West Bengal i.c.w. memo DCLD/146/2022 (DC Misc) dated 18/6/2022 of the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India.
Page 1 h. Final Order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India i.c.w. complaint dated 3/11/2021 i. Copy of order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in favour of me and against advocate Shri Rudranil De and Smt. AnwashaHalder to cancel their Bar Council Registration permanently.
j. Copy of the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India in favour of me and against stated advocates to pay me compensation as prayed through sr. no 3 of my complaint dated 3/11/21.
k. And other related information."
Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.12.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Present Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Jt Secretary, BCI The Appellant referred to his written submission dated 24.04.2024 and stated that no information regarding the action taken on his complaints regarding disciplinary proceedings against certain advocates enrolled with the Bar Council of West Bengal was provided. He further added that no action was taken on his complaint by Bar Council of West Bengal, till date and that he has been pursuing this matter for more than 4 years.
Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey reiterated the written submission was sent by the CPIO, DC Department, DCIO, New Delhi vide letter dated 30.04.2024, the relevant extracts of which are as under:
"3. I would like to submit that averments made by appellant/complainant herein is not correct, hence it is denied. It is bring to your kind notice that complainant/appellant has not approached the Hon'ble CIC with a clean hands as almost on the same ground, same cause of action, the Hon'ble CIC vide its order dated 3.1.2023 disposed of the case No. CIC/BCION/C/2022/118062 in the matter of same appellant i.e. Pritam Bhattacharya Vs. CPIO, Bar Council of India whereby Hon'ble CIC disposed of the 2nd appeal with the observation that the Commission finds no scope of action in the matter, complainant is advised to pursue his grievances before the appropriate forum. Hence, the appellant is in habit of filing multiple RTIs, misusing the provision of RTI Act and wanted to mislead the CIC. Even, the appellant/ complainant does not have any regard of the order passed by Hon'ble CIC as he has made allegations in Page 2 his complaint itself that he is not interested for hearing of this instant complaint before Ms. Saroj Punhani due to her abuse of power. A copy of the order of Hon'ble CIC dated 3.1.2023 is annexed as Annexurc A.
4. I would like to submit that the CPIO has provided the information vide its letter No. BCI/D/689/2022 dated 03.01.2023. It was informed to the appellant that as per the provision of section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961, the State Bar Council is empowered to take action against the advocate. It is to be noted that vide his RTI dated 14.11.2022, the Appellate sought copies of order and action taken on his complaint against advocate namely Smt. Jaya Sarkar, Sh. Lokesh Pal, Mohd.
Mehtab, Shri. RudraRani D and Shri. Anwar Haldar who are enrolled in the State Bar Council of West Bengal. It was further informed that his previous two RTIs dated 04.03.2023 (both having the same date) as well as representation have already been sent to Bar Council of West Bengal vide BCID/182/2022 (DC/RTI/149/150/2022) dated 20.04.2022 to take appropriate action. As the information sought by him through his RTI dated 14.11.2022 relating to the State Bar Council of West Bengal, it was transferred u/s 6 (3) of the R11 Act, 2005 to the CPIO State Bar Council West Bengal to provide him the information in response to his RTI dated 14.11.2022.
The copies of RTI dated 14.11.2022, reply of CPIO No BCI/D(DC/RTI/689/2022 dated 03.01.2023 along with earlier reply of the CPIO No. BCI/D/249/2023 DC/RP-185 and 186) dated 17.04.2023 are enclosed herewith as Annexure "B". (colly)
5. It is to submit that not satisfied with the reply of CPIO, he has also preferred first appeal on 14.12.2022 whereby first Appellate Authority vide its order dated 16.01.2023 disposed of the appeal holding that information given by the CPIO vide his reply dated 3.1.2023 is correct and the stand of the CPIO was reiterated. The copy of the order of Appellate Authority alongwith forwarding letter No. BCI/ D/6/2023 (DC/ RTI497/ APPEAL-
769) dated 19.01.2023 are enclosed herewith as Annexure "C".
6. I would like to submit that in these fact and circumstances as stated above the appellant/complainant wanted to resolve his grievances against the averred advocate or nature of action on his complaint against them by the Bar Council of India are not issue that are amenable to the jurisdiction of the provision of RTI Act, 2005. In a case, it is held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 wherein it has been held as under:
"6 proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
7. In another case, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.(C) 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
Page 3 "6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition (C) No. 2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20.... While deciding whether a citizen should or should not gel a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority...."
8. In these fact and circumstances as stated above, I pray the Hon'ble CIC that appeal/complaint be dismissed with heavy cost on the appellant/complainant as filing RTI/representation/1st appeal on a multiple time on the same subject amount to misuse of provision of RTI as well as wastage of judicial time of Hon'ble CIC and of the Public Authority."
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent as only such information that is held and available in the records of a public authority can be provided. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the instant matter.
With the above observation, the instant Second Appeal stands disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)