Central Information Commission
Roshani A. Joshi vs Bar Council Of India on 29 July, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BCOIN/A/2024/631423
Ms. Roshani A. Joshi ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO,
Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24.07.2025
Date of Decision : 24.07.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 23.01.2024
PIO replied on : 26.02.2024
First Appeal filed on : 22.03.2024
First Appellate Order on : 22.05.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 21.07.2024
Information sought and background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 23.01.2024 seeking information
on following points:-
"With respect to one Advocate namely, Mr. Manoj Shukla, registered
with Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa bearing Enrollment number
MAH/178/2001, kindly provide me with the information as
enumerated hereinbelow:
1. Full name (along with father's name) of the advocate bearing
aforesaid enrollment number, registered and maintained in the roll
of Advocates maintained by the Bar Council Of Maharashtra & Goa.
2. Office or residential address of the advocate bearing aforesaid
enrollment number
3. Certified Copy of Sanad/ Certificate of enrollment issued to the
advocate bearing aforesaid Enrollment number
4. Passing date of LLB Or Law Degree by the advocate bearing
aforesaid enrollment number
5. Exact date of Enrollment of the Advocate bearing aforesaid
enrollment number
6. Certified Copy of LLB or law degree Certificate maintained in the
records of state bar council
7. Certified Copy of Matriculation Certificate.
8. Certified Copies of Mark sheet or certificates issued by any
University Or pertaining to education, submitted along with
enrollment application
9. Certified Copy of Admit card for AIBE, if available
Page 1
10. Place of qualification with respect to LLB degree
11.E-mail ID, if any
12. Contact number (Both Mobile and Landline Numbers of the
advocate bearing aforesaid enrollment number) Certified Copy of
Identity card
13. Certified Copy of verification report from bar Association
14.Certified Copy of the photograph of the advocate bearing
aforesaid enrollment number."
The CPIO vide letter dated 26.02.2024 replied as under:-
"In pursuance to your RTI application, with regards to Para 1 and 2
are concerned, the details as per record given below
Name Address
Adv. Shukla Manoj Kumar MS/RBI/30/4, Mithagar
Bhanuprakash B.A., LL.B Road,
Mulund (E), Mumbai-
400081
Enrollment No.
Mah/178/2001
Date of Enrollment:
22/01/2001
With regards to Para 3 is concerned, Certified copy of Sanad can not
be given in view of Section 8 (1) (j), so also we do not maintained the
office copy
With regards to Para 4 is concerned, Passing date of LL B is April
2000 With regards to Para 5 is concerned, the Date of Enrollment is
22/01/2001.
With regards to Para 6 is concerned, Law documents can not be given
in view of Section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act.
With regards to Para 7 is concerned, Matriculation documents can not
be given in view of Section 8 (1) (j) of RTI Act.
With regards to Para 10 is concerned, as per Law documents, the
place of qualification is University of Mumbai.
With regards to Para 11 is concerned, E-mail ID is not available on
records.
With regards to Para 12 is concerned, Contact number is not available
on records.
With regards to Para 13 is concerned, no such document is available.
With regards to Para 14 is concerned, no such document can be
provided regards certified copy of photograph."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a
First Appeal dated 22.03.2024. The FAA vide order dated 22.05.2024 stated
as under:-
"Matter is called out. The Appellant is absent. However, she chooses
to hear on Audio Call. She has called on Mobile No. 9909901108. In
this appeal she has submitted that she has demanded the
information parawise and that information should be provided
including providing certified copy of sanad given to the advocate and
Page 2
his educational qualification documents. Perused her RTI application
dated 23/01/2024. She has demanded the information in 14
Paragraphs. The reply has been sent by PIO on 26/02/2024 giving
parawise reply to the RTI application. The Appellant submitted that
she did not received the reply and insisted to give the information as
demanded.
Since the reply to the RTI application has already been sent by the
PIO which according to heard has not been received. In view of the
said facts and circumstances, the appeal stands disposed of with the
direction to PIO to resend the reply dated 26/02/2024 by Registered
Post with a liberty to the Appellant that if she do not satisfied, she
may prefer 2nd appeal in the name of Hon'ble Central Information
Commissioner, Central Information Commission, Baba Gangnath
Marg, Munirka, New Delhi-110067.
ORDER
Appeal stands disposed of."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Sharad Bagul, Secretary/Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and Mr. Nelson Rajan, Advocate- participated in the hearing through video-conferencing.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information as available in their records has been duly provided to the Appellant. They averred that the Appellant has filed similar RTI applications in different format seeking information related to third parties. They stated that their office has already furnished similar information in response to Appellant's other RTI Applications.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Upon perusal of records and examining the facts of the case at hand, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by the concerned PIO. The reply is self- explanatory and information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is Page 3 warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The appeal is 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)