Central Information Commission
Ravindra Kumar vs Bar Council Of India on 14 November, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/BCOIN/C/2023/143753
Shri Ravindra Kumar निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Bar Council of India
Date of Hearing : 12.11.2024
Date of Decision : 12.11.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 05.06.2023
PIO replied on : 15.10.2023
First Appeal filed on : 30.07.2023
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 28.10.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 05.06.2023 seeking information on following points:-
1.Date of receipt of report of State Bar Council of Karanataka vide letterNo. KSBC/2062/2022 dated 18-10-2023 in BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA NEW DELHI.
2.Copy of the inward register in which particulars of State Bar Council of Karanataka vide letter No. KSBC/2062/2022 dated 18-10-
2023 report written 3.Cooy of office note on which orders of competent authority for further course of action which bears initial/signature view a/note name and designation to be written under initial/signatures in office note.
4. Present Status of registered as ECR NO 21/2022
5. registered as ECR NO 21/2022 which is pending for consideration by the GENERAL COUNCIL MEETING of Bar Council of India" is conducted, copy of the proceedings Page 1
6.Copy of letter/directions sent to State Bar Council of Karanataka in connection with point No.5."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 30.07.2023 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.
The CPIO, Bar Council of India, New Delhi vide letter dated 15.10.2023 replied as under:-
"Due to heavy work load, the information could not send in time for which we are highly regretted.
Please refer to your RTI application whereby you have sought certain Information regarding rejection of Advocate of enrolment by the State Bar Council of Karnataka. It is to be noted that you are filing multiple RTI on the same subject which is already reply many time by the Bar Council of India You are required to see the reply given by the CPIO vide letter No. BCI:D: 551/2022 dated 26.12.2022 wherein it is stated that enrolment paper u/s 26(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961 has been received from the Bar Council of Karnataka vide their letter No. KSBC/2062/2022 dated 13.10.2022. After receipt of letter your file has been allotted ECR No. 21/2022 which is pending for consideration by the General House of the Bar Council of India.
It is further to inform you as an when your matter is decided by the General Council of the Bar Council of India it will be inform to the State Bar Council. Please find under para wise reply:-
As regard to queries No. 1:-
Please refer the reply given as above. It is to inform you enrolment Committee of the State Bar Council of Karnataka is dated 7th January, 2022.
As regard to queries No. 2:-
The letter of the State Bar Council of Karnataka vide letter No. KSBC/2062/2022 dated 18.10.2023(wrongly written by you) It is suppose3d to the dated 13.10.2022 has been received vide dairy No. 3249 dated 19.10.2022.
As regard to queries No. 3, 4 & 5:-
Please refer the reply given as above in the beginning of the reply of their letter.
As regard to queries No. 6:-
There is the question of sending any direction/letter to the State Bar Council of Karnataka as ECR No. 21/2022 is pending to be considered by the General Council of the Bar Council of India."
Page 2 Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Written submission dated 21.10.2024 has been received from the Complainant and same has been taken on record for perusal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present through video-conferencing.
Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kr. Pandey, Jt Secretary/PIO - participated in the hearing.
The Complainant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He requested to direct the PIO to furnish the information sought.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly provided to the Complainant in response to his various RTI Applications on the same issue.
Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act . Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing Page 3 the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act.
No further action lies.
Complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Page 4 Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)