Central Information Commission
S. Raghunathan (Advocate) vs Bar Council Of India on 4 April, 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/2024/106354.
Shri. S. Raghunathan. ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Bar Council of India.
Date of Hearing : 02.04.2025
Date of Decision : 02.04.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 17.10.2023
PIO replied on : 10.11.2023
First Appeal filed on : 03.01.2024
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 01.03.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 17.10.2023 seeking information on following points:-
"a. A Representation Letter dated 14 September 2023 was written by me addressed to the Hon'ble Chairman, Bar Council of India. b. The said letter was posted through speed post ET23015464IN to the Hon'ble Chairman. Bar Council of India and the same has been delivered on 20 September 2023.
c. Kindly provide me with the information as to the action taken on the said representation as mentioned above"
The CPIO vide letter dated 10.11.2023 replied as under:-
"As regard to queries No. a to c:-
In this context, it is to inform you that your representation dated 14.09.2022 addressed to Chairman, Bar Council of India is still pending for consideration. The Receipt No. 1199 dated 02.11.2023 for Rs. 10/- remitted by you towards application fee is sent herewith."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.01.2024. The FAA vide order dated 18.03.2024 stated as under:
Page 1 "..An appeal dated 03.01.2024 is preferred by Mr. S.Raghunathan under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 against the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Bar Council of India on the ground that the appellant he has not received any information after reply dated 10.11.2023 furnished by CPIO to his RTI application dated 17.10.2023. I have perused of the appeal dated 03.01.2024 preferred by Mr. S.Raghunathan under Section 19 of the Right to information Act, 2005 against the reply dated 10.11.2023 of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the Bar Council of India on the ground the appellant he has not received any information after reply dated 10.11.2023 furnished by CPIO to his RTI application dated 17.10.2023 and I have called for the documents relating to RTI application and reply sent by the CPIO. On bare perusal of the documents and reply of the RTI application, it reveals that the CPIO has provided correct information to the applicant. However, CPIO is directed to provide the present status of representation dated 14.09.2022 to the appellant herein, filed by him.."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission dated 20.03.2025 has been received from the Appellant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Written submission dated 01.04.2025 has been received from the Respondent and same has been taken on record for perusal. The relevant extract whereof is as under:
"..This is with reference to your above cited notice under the Right to Information Act, 2005 whereby Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) is directed to appear before Hon'ble Central Information Commissioner on 02.04.2025 at 11:50 AM along with written submission in regard to appeal/complaint filed by Mr. S. Raghunathan.
2. In this context, I am to submit in entirety the facts and circumstances in the present case.
That the appellant filed a RTI application dated 17.10.2023, with regard to the appellant's representation dated 14.09.2023, addressed to the Chairman, the same was replied by the CPIO vide letter no BCI:D: 77/2023 (RTI-796/Council) dated 10.11.2023, wherein it was mentioned that your representation dated 14.09.2022 is pending for consideration. Thereafter, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 03.01.2024 inquiring on the information as to action taken on the above mentioned representation. The First Appeal was replied by the Appellate Authority vide letter no BCI:D 146/2023 (12/RTI/appeal/Council) dated 21.03.2024. That the appellant filed the second appeal dated 21.02.2024 before the CIC on the ground that he was not provided the information as to the action taken on the representation dated 14.09.2023 addressed to Chairman, BCI and not received the Page 2 reply of the CPIO in response to his appeal application dated 21.02.2024.
3. At the outset, I am to submit that the averment made by the appellant herein is not correct and it is wrong, therefore denied. The fact of the matter is that the CPIO has furnished the reply on 10.11.2023, as mentioned above, to the best of his knowledge.
4. Further, it is to bring to your kind notice that the representation dated 14.09.2023 addressed to Chairman, BCI is still pending for consideration.
5. In view of the above, it is humbly prayed that appeal/complaint filed by the appellant does not survive against the CPIO of the Bar Council of India. Hence, the same may please be dismissed..."
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Ashok Pandey, Secretary, BCI- participated in the hearing.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information as available in their records has been duly provided to the Appellant. He further stated that the representation dated 14.09.2023 addressed to Chairman, BCI is still pending for consideration.
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 submissions made during hearing, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by concerned PIO. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of 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 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)