Central Information Commission
Manjurhak N Khokar vs Bar Council Of India on 28 March, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/BCOIN/A/2022/145257
Manjurhak N Khokar ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Bar Council of Gujarat,
RTI Cell, 3rd Floor, Satya
Mev Complex, Opp. Gujarat
High Court, Sola, Ahmedabad-
380060, Gujarat. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 24/03/2023
Date of Decision : 24/03/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 06/06/2022 (resubmitted on 28-
30/06/2022)
CPIO replied on : Not on record
First appeal filed on : 09/07/2022
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 16/08/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.06.2022 seeking the following information:1
"To registered and book petition before Bar Council of India and Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, kindly give Me information with documentary evidence of understated questions.
(A) By whom order and by which resolution passed by Bar Council of Gujarat my BCG / 1516/2020 complaint no. 17/2020 is not referred to disciplinary committee against the victim applicant by two perverted Muslim advocates accused.
(B) Kindly give the certified copy of BC resolution no. 107/2020 meeting was.held on 11.10.2020.
(C) Bar Council of Gujarat established and consist for the good faith of and justice for victim applicants against advocates or not please give me the rules of BCG with concept.
(D) Bar Council of Gujarat established and consist to save criminals and professional ethics breakers advocates against the victim lady complainant please reply.
(E) How many complaint registered before Bar Council of Gujarat against the professional ethics and criminal advocates from the year 1st January 2010 to 1st May 2022 kindly give me information year wise and name and address wise in detail.
(F) How many complaint has been registered and drops against the criminal and professional ethics breaker advocates from the year 1st January 2010 to 1st May 2022 please give me information year wise and name and address wise complaint disposed of in detail.
(G) How many sanad suspend. of professional ethics breaker advocates from the year 1st January 2010 to 1st May 2022 please give me information year wise, name and address wise in detail, (H) In which police station complaint of extortion registered by senior advocate Jagdish Raman against the Bar Council's Member with. them name and address in detail. Please reply.2
(I) How many statements records in the complaint of extortion registered by senior advocate Jagdish Ramani of Baroda in which police station. please give me information with name and address without attraction of section 8 and 9 of Information Act 2005, because it is public at large and for the justice of victim lady.
(J)What action has been taken against the Nalin D. Patel of Baroda Bar in the big scam, scandal and fraud in the Patel farmers Complaint of Varnama Ta. Dist.
Vadodara till now.
(K) By which resolution Nalin Patel was saved in big scam, scandal and fraud against the farmer of Varnama Village by BCG, give me certified copy of resolution passed by BCG.
(L)What action has been taken in obscene Mujra (dance) held in Savli Court Compound without prior permission of District Court by Advocate Nalin Patel.
(M) By which resolution Advocate Nalin Patel has been saved in obscene Mujra (Dance) held in Savli Court Compound kindly give me certified copy of resolution of BCG.
(N) What action taken in the accidental death of senior civil judge C.H. Patel of Baroda in participating of colourful party held by Advocate Nalin Patel without prior or later permission of Principal District Judge of Vadoclara Patel kindly give me the certified copy of permission and resolution and order.
(O) What action has been taken for the dispute of election of 2021-2022 order passed by hon'ble High Court of Gujarat to pass new Constitution in first meeting of 2021-22 election for the breach of order of High Court.
(P) What legal action has been taken against professional ethics breaker advocates names are Nitin Kapde, Firoz Pathan, Nalin Patel, Raksha Soni and other of Baroda Bar Association and whole Gujarat through Bar Council of Gujarati kindly give me the certified copy of order and resolution."
Having not received any response from the CPIO, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 09.07.2022 stating as under:
3"I applicant seeking information under RTI with IPO worth Rs. 50/- but PIO has returned IPO worth Rs. 50/.- and demand cash or money order worth Rs. 50/- so I applicant sent MO on dated: 17.6.2022 to BCG, PIO, but it was not delivered by what reason that I don't know so I complained to post office \Nadi Swaminarayan, Baroda in accordance I got answer money order of dated :
17.6.2022 is delivered in BCG on dated : 30.6.2022. Not only this against I sent money order on dated : 28.6.2022 and same was delivered on 30.6.2022 in accordance of RTI application fees of dated : 6.6.2022. But till now any answer and no any information has been given through PIO of Bar Council of Gujarat."
FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Siddhi Bhavsar, I/c Secretary & CPIO present through audio conference.
The Appellant's written submissions dated 17.03.2023 were perused where he has requested for a decision on merits while harping on the argument that the CPIO is withholding information related to a 'big scam and scandal to save criminal advocates'.
The CPIO submitted that - "the Bar Council of Gujarat office has received an application for asking information under RTI Act from Ms. Dilshad M. Patel, who is the original appellant instead of Mr. Manjurhak N. Khokhar, along with Indian Postal Order of Rs.50/- on 07/06/2022. In this regard, this office has replied her to pay prescribed fee of Rs.50/- through money order or by cash and returned IPO to appellant. Appellant has sent fees of Rs.50/- by way of money order and the same was received by the office on 09/07/2022. I have further to state that appellant thereafter immediately within two day, has sent First Appeal under Right to Information Act. Therefore, the time period of 30 days for providing information was not completed as she has not sent fees of RTI application. However, the First Appellate Authority has given opportunity to the appellant to remain present for hearing on 18/09/2022 for her First Appeal and issued notice 4 through R.P.A.D. but the appellant was not chosen to remain present before the Appellate Authority and sent written arguments only."
Decision:
The Commission at the outset observes that the Central Registry has erroneously registered the instant appeal in the name of Manjurhak N Khokar, since the same has been filed by Dilshad Mohammed Zuber Patel, C/o M N Khokar. The reference of Manjurhak N Khokar as the Appellant while registration of the instant case appears to have been based on another appeal filed by Manjurhak N Khokar vide File No. CIC/BCOIN/A/2022/145237 which is also being heard simultaneously with this Appeal. Therefore, the first objection of the CPIO to the maintainability of the instant appeal is addressed.
However, the Commission concededly notes that the Appellant filed the First Appeal prematurely on the grounds of non-receipt of reply i.e without waiting for the statutory period of 30 days from the date of filing of the RTI Application, which subsequently renders the instant Second Appeal as not maintainable. In other words, the First Appeal of 09.07.2022 alleging non-receipt of reply is premature vis-à-vis the date of re-submission of the RTI Application (28- 30.06.2022). For the sake of clarity, Section 19(1) of the RTI Act reads as under:
"Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority:"
Having observed as above, the appeal is treated as not maintainable and infructuous.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6