Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Suraj Chand Aggrawal vs High Court Of Delhi on 7 April, 2021

                                  के ीय सूचना आयोग
                         Central Information Commission
                              बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
                         Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                          नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/BCOIN/A/2019/641203
                                     CIC/HCDEL/A/2019/641138

Shri Suraj Chand Aggrawal                                     ... अपीलकता/Appellant
                                 VERSUS/बनाम

PIO                                                      ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Bar Council of India

PIO
High Court of Delhi

Date of Hearing                       :    06.04.2021
Date of Decision                      :    07.04.2021
Chief Information Commissioner       :     Shri Y. K. Sinha

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:

  Case       RTI Filed      CPIO reply      First appeal         FAO         2nd Appeal
   No.          on                                                          received on
 641203     15.02.2019     Not on Record    17.03.2019     Not on Record    19.05.2019
 641138     28.02.2019     Not on Record    31.03.2019     Not on Record    22.05.2019

Information sought

and background of the case:

(1) CIC/BCOIN/A/2019/641203 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 15.02.2019 seeking information on following points:-

Having not received any response from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.03.2019 and the same remained unheard.

Feeling aggrieved over non-receipt of the information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

(2) CIC/HCDEL/A/2019/641138 The Appellant filed an RTI application dated28.02.2019 seeking information on following 06 points:-

Etc. The PIO vide online reply dated 04.03.2019 transferred the RTI application to the Registrar (Admin) Delhi High Court.

Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 31.03.2019 and the same remained unheard.

Feeling aggrieved over non-receipt of the information, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

In order to ensure social distancing and prevent the spread of the pandemic, COVID-19, hearings through video conference were scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.

The Appellant remained absent during the hearing despite prior intimation.

The Respondent, represented by Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Joint Secretary, BCI; Ms Anu Bagai, Advocate and Nominated Counsel, High Court of Delhi; Ms. Veena Kumar, APIO and Assistant Registrar; Mr Sudhir Sachdeva, Admn Officer (Judicial) and Mr. Dibyaranjan Gouda, Judicial Assistant, High Court of Delhi participated in the hearing through video conference. Shri Pandey stated that vide reply dated 11.07.2019, the Appellant was informed that enrolment of Advocate is a subject of State Bar Council/ s, hence the Appellant could approach the concerned State Bar Council to know the procedure for enrolment. Ms. Bagai stated that neither was the transferred RTI application received by them nor did the queries raised by the Appellant pertain to the High Court of Delhi.

Decision:

Having heard the Respondents and on perusal of the available records, the Commission observes that an appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent, BCI. However, there has been a substantial delay in providing the same to the Appellant who was not present during the hearing to buttress his case. Hence, the Commission cautions Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Jt Secretary, BCI to exercise due care in future to ensure that correct and complete information is furnished timely to the RTI applicant(s) as per provisions of the Act. As regards the Second Appeal filed against High Court of Delhi, it is the Respondent's contention that the RTI Page 3 of 4 application was never received by them. In the absence of the Appellant during the hearing, the Commission is unable to initiate any further action in the matter more so for the reason that the Respondent claimed that the information was not available with them.

With the above observations, the instant Second Appeals stand disposed off accordingly.

Y. K. Sinha ( वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 of 4