Central Information Commission
Mr.Ramesh Chand Jain vs Dtc, Gnct Delhi on 24 June, 2011
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: +91-11-26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2011/001117/13066
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2010/00117
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Chand Jain
I-355/1, Gali No. 10
Gautampuri, Delhi 110053
Respondent : Ms. Renu Popli
Public Information Officer & Sr. Manager (P&SO), Delhi Transport Corporation, BBM Complex, New Delhi RTI application filed on : 29/11/2010 PIO replied : 03/12/2010 First appeal filed on : 03/01/2011 First Appellate Authority order : 15/02/2011 PIO Reply after FAA order : 25/02/2011 & 01/03/2011 Second Appeal received on : 21/04/2011 Sl. Information sought by the appellant Reply of the PIO
1. Due to what reasons and on whose order were the RTI Act does not allow the applicant to seek 21 cases pertaining to Pension matters (WP(C)No. any reasons/explanation of the Public 14027/2009 & other connected matters) handed Authority. over by DTC to Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat when there are 99 advocates in the DTC panel. Had DTC taken this decision with the motive of providing private gains to a particular individual.
2. Which advocate was initially entrusted by DTC The list containing names of the advocates with the 21 different cases pertaining to Pension who were entrusted the 21 different cases matters (WP (C)No. 14027/2009 & other connected pertaining to Pension matters (WP (C)No. matters) and for what reasons were these cases 14027/2009 & other connected matters) has later entrusted to Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat. What already been provided to the PIO,HQ in opinions and suggestions were given by the connection with earlier RTI application of the previously chosen advocate to DTC. Provide same applicant namely Shri Ramesh -- Chand attested photo copies of the opinions and Jam vide this office memo No. suggestions. Leg.Adv./HC/RTI/2010/4114 dt. 10.8.2010.
The D.B. of the High Court connected all these matters and heard together & also disposed of by a common order dt. 10. 8.
2010. It is not clear as to which of the advocates opinion (out of 21 cases) has been asked by the applicant.
3. How much payment has been made by DTC to all Not replied its panel advocates other than Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat right from their coming into the panel. Provide details of the full payment made to each advocate for each year Page 1 of 3
4. How much money has been spent by DTC till date No such record is maintained by this office in the lawsuits pertaining to the pension related separately. Hence, information cannot be cases. Give details of each case in each year. provided.
6. On what basis, guidelines and procedure DTC takes There is no laid down procedure for marking the decision of including any advocate to its panel. the-cases to Panel Advocates. The cases are Give full details marked to the advocates at the sole discretion of the competent authority authorised for entrustment of cases to the Panel Advocates.
Ground of the First Appeal:
The information provided is incomplete and wrong.
Order of the FAA:
RTI application and the replies to the questions given thereto have been seen. Specific replies are to be given to Q.Nos. 2, 3, 4, 8, 9 & 10. Regarding Q.No. 3, information has been stated to be voluminous by the Accounts Branch. So, they will give information of the total expenses incurred in respect of all the court cases for last three years only (2008-09, 2009-2010 & 2010-201l. upto the date of giving information). Concerned officials shall do so within 15 days of the receipts of this appeal order.
Reply of the PIO after FAA Order:
Total expenses in court cases for the year 2008-09,2009 & 2010-11 is as under :-
Year Amount
2008-09 Rs. 98,53,124 . 00
2009-10 Rs. 1,00,28,530.00
2010-11(upto Oct. 10 as Ledger Rs. 80,22,000.00
from Computer received upto Oct. 10)
Point no. 1 : All pension related 21 cases WP (C)No. 14027/2009 & other connected matters were entrusted to Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat Advocate except one case WP (C)No. 4689/2010 titled Devi Singh vs. DTC which were entrusted to Shri J.S. Bhasin, Advocate for contesting before the High Court. The D.B. of high Court heard all these 21 cases together and decided the same by a common judgement dt. 10.08.2010. Therefore there is no question of entrusting these21 cases initially to other Advocates and then transfer to Smt. Avnish Ahlawat and opinion of former Advocates as mentioned in the RTI Application.
Point no. 4 : As already replied it is again stated that no record is maintained in such manner as sought by the applicant. Hence, information cannot be provided. Point no. 8 : List of the advocates who are contesting DTC's cases in the Supreme Court is enclosed. The fees payable to the Advocates for contesting cases in the Supreme Court is as under :-
a)Appearance in SLP Writ petition : Rs. 1000/- per appearance
b)Stay Application : Rs. 1000/-
c)Filing and drafting : Rs. 1500/-
d)Opinion : Rs. 550/-
Point no. 9 : It pertains to Pension cell as such requisite information may be had from them. Point no. 10 : The selection of Standing Counsel is at the sole discretion of the competent Authority. There is no laid down procedure, terms and conditions for the same.
Ground of the Second Appeal:
The information provided to point no. 1 , 2 , 3, 4 and 6 are unsatisfactory.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present Appellant: Mr. Ramesh Chand Jain;
Respondent: Ms. Renu Popli, Public Information Officer & Sr. Manager (P&SO);
The PIO has provided adequate information but is now directed to provide the following: 1- Query-1: Copy of the approval and file notings by which cases were allotted to Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat.Page 2 of 3
2- Query-2: If there is any opinion that was taken from any advocate earlier other than Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat on the matter this will be provided. If no opinion had been taken this will be stated.
3- Query-6: If there are any guidelines based on which panel advocates are selected this will be provided. If there are no such rules/guidelines this will be stated.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The PIO is directed to provide the information as detailed above to the Appellant before 10 July 2011.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties. Any information in compliance with this Order will be provided free of cost as per Section 7(6) of RTI Act.
Shailesh Gandhi Information Commissioner 24 June 2011 (In any correspondence on this decision, mention the complete decision number.) (MC) Page 3 of 3