Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Mr.Mohan K Samtani vs Ministry Of Law And Justice on 28 June, 2013

                         Central Information Commission
              Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan, 
                      Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi­110066
                     Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931

                                                       Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000004
                                                                CIC/SS/A/2012/000314
                                                                    Dated: 28.06.2013

Name of Appellant                   :         Shri Mohan K. Samtani

Name of Respondent                  :         Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa

                                        ORDER

Shri Mohan K. Samtani, hereinafter called the appellant, has filed two appeals dated 8.7.2011 and 1.10.2011 before the Commission against the respondent Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, Mumbai for denial of information in reply to his RTI-applications dated 24.2.2009 and 5.5.2011. The matter came up for hearing on 25.06.2012 through videoconferencing. The appellant was represented by Shri K.K. Modi whereas the respondent were represented by P.Y. Ranpise, Secretary & CPIO and Shri Ashish Deshmukh at NIC Videoconferencing Facility Centre, Mumbai. The matter was kept reserved for order.

Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000004

2. The appellant had filed an application dated 24.2.2009 under the provisions of the RTI Act in which he sought information on the following eight queries - "(1) Details/rules of constitution of disciplinary committees; (2) Minutes of hearing of disciplinary committee 120 held on 16.2.2009 presided by Advocate Raghuvanshi; (3) How many Advocates have been complained against at the Bar Council of Maharashtra from the time the Bar Council was formed; (4) How 2 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000004 CIC/SS/A/2012/000314 many Advocates have had action taken against them in Maharashtra from the time the Bar Council was formed; (5) How many of the Advocates that action was taken against were senior Advocates; (6) How many Advocates have been complained against at the Bar Council of India from the time the Bar Council was formed; (7) How many Advocates have had action taken against them in India from the time the Bar Council was formed; and (8) How many of the Advocates that action was taken against the Bar Council of India were senior Advocates." The CPIO vide his letter No. Gen(Adm)/1729/2009 dated 25.3.2009 informed the appellant that the provisions of Right to Information were not applicable to the Bar Council as Bar Council is not public authority as per the decision of State Information Commission. However, the appellant was informed that as regards the rules pertaining to the D.C. queries, he may refer the Bar Council of India Rules which are available along with the Advocates Act.

3. Aggrieved by the reply of the CPIO, the appellant preferred first-appeal on 9.4.2009 before FAA. The CPIO vide letter dated 22.5.2009 informed the appellant that his appeal was not as per RTI Act and the same was not affixed with stamp.

Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000314

4. The appellant had filed an application dated 5.5.2011 under the provisions of the RTI Act in which he sought information on twelve queries in continuation of his earlier RTI request dated 24.2.2009 on the grounds that PIO has denied information at every stage in gross disregard to the RTI Act.

5. The FAA vide his order No. 35 of 2011 dated 5.8.2011 held that the CPIO has rightly supplied the information sought by the appellant. There was no fault on the part of the present CPIO. The then Secretary Ms. Varsha Rokade, who was the CPIO has left the office of the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa and today, she is not in service of the Bar Council. Therefore, it is not possible for him 3 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/000004 CIC/SS/A/2012/000314 to pass any order against her. The CPIO or FAA are not expected to interpret the law. The FAA rejected appellant's first appeal.

6. During the hearing the respondent CPIO submits that the information sought by the appellant does not come under the purview of Section 8 of the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, the office had not supplied the same to him. The State Information Commission vide orders dated 15.11.2008, 18.2.2009 and 11.5.2009 had decided that RTI Act is not applicable to them. Further on 22.10.2009 the Bar Council was dissolved and the post of the FAA gets vacated. Later on 18.7.2010 another Council was constituted and new Vice Chairman Mr. Nitin L. Chaudhari was appointed. The appellant unnecessarily files application with the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa and while filing the application he abused the office bearer as well as the staff. The appellant was told that the information sought by him comes under purview of the Section 8 of the RTI Act, therefore, the Bar Council will not supply him any such information but later on he starts filing applications under RTI and demanding the same information regularly that is why those applications were not entertained by the CPIO. In the month of February, 2011, the then Secretary Ms. Varsha Rokade resigned from the post of Secretary. Therefore, the charge of Secretary was handed over to him. By clubbing all the applications and appeal of the appellant giving common number to Appeal No. 35 of 2011, the then FAA Mr. Anil Gowardipe was pleased to reject the appeal of the appellant.

7. In the matter whether Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils are public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, the Commission vide its decision dated 11.1.2010 (Case Nos. CIC/ AT/C / 2009/ 000244, 246, 508, 511, 562, 245, 485, 510, 559, 764) in the case of S/Shri P.S. Arora, Shiv Sagar Dwivedi, Syed Ejaz Hussai, Mahendra Deo Sharma, Sunil Dutt, S. Mahalingam Vs. Bar Council of India & Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana, the Commission held that "the Bar Councils - Bar Council of India and the State Bar Councils are public authorities within the meaning of Section 2(h)(b) of the RTI Act."

CIC/SS/A/2012/000314

8. The State Information Commission of Haryana in case No. 4809 of 2011 dated 15.12.2011 in the matter of Prem Chand Goel Vs. Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana held that "the appellant had sought information from the Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh, an Inter State Body functioning under the control of Government of India, jurisdiction of which in term of decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CWP No. 19682 of 2006 - titled Bar Council of Punjab & Haryana & Haryana High Court Vs. State Information Commission, Punjab, is under the jurisdiction of Central Government. Since, the jurisdiction of this Commission is restricted to the public authorities of the State of Haryana, the complaint is disposed of with the directions to the complainant to approach the Central Information Commission, New Delhi to seek the remedy".

9. Similar decision has been passed by the Gujarat Information Commission in the matter of Pramukh, Atmadeep Khadi Gramodyoga and Education Trust Vs. Bar Council of Gujarat in case No. 0775/2007-08 dated 10.7.2008 that the Central Information Commission has the jurisdiction to take cognizance and decide the present complaint.

10. In view of the above decisions of the State Information Commissions of Haryana and Gujarat, the jurisdiction of Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa lies before the Central Information Commission. The Central Information Commission vide its order dated 11.1.2010 had already decided that Bar Council of India and State Bar Councils are public authorities within the meaning of Section 2(h) (b) of the RTI Act, 2005, the Commission hereby directs the CPIO, Bar Council of Maharashtra, & Goa to provide requisite point-wise information to the appellant on his both RTI applications dated 24.2.2009 and 5.5.2011 permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 within four weeks of receipt of this order.

CIC/SS/A/2012/000314 The matter is accordingly disposed of with the above directions.

(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:

(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:

Shri Mohan K. Samtani, Flat No. 9 & 10 Pipewala Building, 58-70, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Colaba, Mumbai-400005 The Secretary & CPIO, Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, 2nd Floor, High Court Extension, Fort, Mumbai-400032.

The Vice Chairman & First Appellate Authority, Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa, 2nd Floor, High Court Extension, Fort, Mumbai-400032.