Central Information Commission
P Balasubramaniyan vs Bar Council Of India on 9 May, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के यसच
ू नाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/BCOIN/C/2022/111913
CIC/BCOIN/C/2022/112320
P Balasubramaniyan ....िशकायतकता/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Bar Council of India, RTI Cell,
21, Rouse Avenue Institutional
Area, Near Bal Bhawan,
New Delhi-110002. ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Date of Hearing : 31/03/2023
Date of Decision : 26/04/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Note - The above-mentioned Complaints have been clubbed together for
decision as these are based on similar RTI Applications.
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 31/01/2022
CPIO replied on : 03/03/2022
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 10/03/2022
Information sought:
1The Complainant filed RTI application(s) dated 31.01.2022 seeking the following information:
"Ref:- 1. The cause in D.C. Appeal No. 51/2019 and 52/2019 of the Bar Council of India - verdict reserved by the Disciplinary Committee of it on 30.1.2022 Sunday.
2. My application dated 12.1.2022 on E-mail ID to [email protected] on 12.1.2022 and a copy of it enclosed with my written argument dated 19.01.2022 and 20.01.2022 and subsequently sent by Speed Post with acknowledgment due of India Post to the Registrar, Disciplinary Committee and Bar Council of India on 20.01.2022.
Brief facts of the case:-
1. I, P. Balasubramaniyan S/o Palaniyandi having the above mentioned temporary residential cum mailing address of No. 14/45, IIIrd Floor, Dakshinpuri Extension, Dakshinpuri Post, New Delhi - 110062 Cell: 9655309934 E-mail ID:
bsubramanivum6agmail.com, am the applicant herein U/s 6 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 of India and appellant in D.C. Appeal No. 51/2019 of the Bar Council of India.
2. I submit that through my application dated 12.1.2022, in the reference No. 2 supra, I requested the addressee viz. the Registrar, Disciplinary Committee, Bar Council of India, 24, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area, New Delhi - 110002, Cell 9999149384, to do the needful for furnishing me two numbers of certified copies/uncertified copies, as the case may be of the following 1 - 4 kinds of documents on the file and in the custody of the Bar Council of India in D.C. Appeal No. 51/2019.
i) Vakalat / Memo of appearance filed by the Advocate R. Ayyamperumal for the respondent in D.C. Appeal No. 51/2019
ii) Minutes / order dated 26.9.2021 of the Disciplinary Committee in D.C. Appeal No. 51/2019.
iii) Proof for sending and delivery of the counter to the appellant said to be filed in the Bar Council of India by the Advocate R. Ayyamperumal for the respondent in D.C. Appeal No. 51/ 2019 during the course of hearing on 8.1.2022.2
iv) Minutes / order dated 8.1.2022 of the Disciplinary Committee in D.C. Appeal No. 51/2019 for the purpose of reference, filing written arguments in this case and for litigation.
3. But, till date, I am not furnished with certified / uncertified copies, as the case may be, of those 1 - 4 kinds of documents.
4. Now, on 30.1.2022, the Disciplinary Committee of Bar Council of India had reserved the case for final verdict.
5. Hence, this application under Section 6 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 of India, requesting you to furnish me with each 3 Nos. of certified copies of the following 1 - 6 kinds of documents on the file and in the custody of the D.C. department of the Bar Council of India in D.C. Appeal No. 51/2019 within 48 hours of the receipt of this application under the provision of law U/s 7 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 of India for the purpose of reference and litigation viz.
a. Vakalat / Memo of appearance filed by the Advocate R. Ayyamperumal for the respondent in D.C. Appeal No. 51/2019 b. Minutes / order dated 26.9.2021 of the Disciplinary Committee in D.C. Appeal No. 51/2019.
c. Proof for sending and delivery of the counter to the appellant said to be filed in the Bar Council of India by the Advocate R. Ayyarnperumal for the respondent in D.C. Appeal No. 51/2019 during the course of hearing on 8.1.2022.
d. Minutes / order dated 8.1.2022 of the Disciplinary Committee in D.C. Appeal No. 51/2019.
e. The minutes / order dated 23.1.2022 of the Disciplinary Committee in D.C. Appeal No. 51/2019.
f. The minutes / order dated 30.1.2022 of the Disciplinary Committee in D.C. Appeal No. 51/2019.
6. It is pertinent to note that in the decided case of
i) State of U.P. Vs. Raj Narain reported in AIR 1975 SC 865;
ii) S.P. Gupta Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1982 SC 149;
3iii) Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. India -- reported in (1985) SCC 641;
iv) Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. Vs. Proprietors Of Indian Express Newspapers Bombay Pvt. Ltd., - Reported in AIR 1989 SC 190;"
The CPIO furnished a reply to the complainant on 03.03.2022 stated as under:
"In this connection it is to inform you both of your RTI having court fee of Rs. 10/ - which is not acceptable as a RTI fee under the provision of RTI Act 2005, hence both of your RTI are being treated as representation.
It is to inform you that Disciplinary cases are quasi-judicial in nature, hence copy of any document can be given to the parties on making the application along with the requisite fee as prescribed under the Rules of the Bar Council of India. The copies of any document will be provided after receiving an amount of Rs. 500/ as certification fee and Rs. 100 per page folio fee or Rs. 10 fee per page for copy of document as per the Rule of Bar Council of India.
Therefore, you are required to send Demand Draft of requisite amount in favor of Bar Council of India payable at New Delhi towards the copies/certification fees/ charges and postage charges, after inspecting the concerned file of the disciplinary cases."
FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint on the grounds that the reply provided by the CPIO was not within 48 hours as opposed to the life and liberty urged by him in the RTI Application; that the CPIO did not return the RTI Application within 5 days of its receipt as per Section 6(3) of the RTI Act; and that the CPIO clubbed the reply for both of his RTI Applications under reference.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Present through intra-video conference.
Respondent: Jogiram Sharma, CPIO present through intra-video conference.
The Complainant argued that the CPIO did not provide the information after he resubmitted the RTI Application with proper fees on 14.03.2022 and on this 4 ground he wants penal and disciplinary action against the CPIO. He further continued to remark against the CPIO in an excessively frenzied tone putting forth incomprehensible statements without letting the bench to comment or interject.
The CPIO invited the attention of the bench to the detailed written submissions filed by him on 29.03.2023 stating as under:
"In this context, I am to state that Shri P. Balasubramaniyan has filed complaint on the ground that there is a lawful omission/unlawful act and willful dereliction of duty of the CPIO, Disciplinary Committee department, who has provided the information with a delay of 5 days and he has also stated that the CPIO could have given the information separately of his RTIs. At the outset, I would like to submit that averment made by the appellant/complainant herein is not correct and it is wrong, therefore denied. The fact of the matter is that CPIO has already furnished the information treating his both the RTIs dated 31.1.2022 as representation as no proper RTI fee was submitted by the appellant/complainant herein.
It is essential to appreciate the following facts to narrate the sequence of the case for consideration of the Hon'ble Central Information Commission:-
1. I would like to submit that appellant herein Mr Balasubramanian has filed two RTIs applications dated 31.1.2022 with a court fee stamp of Rs. 10/ each, which were received in this office on 3.2.2022 and CPIO, Bar Council of India furnished the reply vide letter No. BCI:D:98(DC/RTI/-75 and 74-/2022) dated 3.3.2022, well within 30 days from the date of receiving the RTI applications/representations dated 31.1.2022. As the RTIs were not accompanied by the proper court fee as per the Rule 6 of RTI Rules, 2012. As per this provisions RTI fee can be in the form of cash Demand Draft, Banker Cheque, IPO or electronic means. However, both of his RTIs were having court fee stamps of Rs. 10, which is not permissible as per the provisions of the RTI Act or Rules. This was the reason both the RTIs of the applicant were treated as representation/s and was replied timely.
2. It is to submit that applicant herein has sought certified copies of certain documents relating to the D.C. Appeal Case No. 51/2019 and D.C. Appeal No. 52/2019 wherein the appellant himself was the party in person and the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India being quasi-judicial in nature has decided both the matters against the appellant Mr. P. Balasubramanian. The Disciplinary Committee vide its order dated 30.1.2022 in D.C. Appeal No. 52/2019 upheld the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Committee of State Bar Council of Tamil Nadu holding the appellant guilty of professional misconduct and 5 the Committee partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of State Bar Council from permanent removal of his enrolment from the roll of State Bar Council to 5 years suspension from the State roll from the date of passing of the impugned order. The order dated 31.1.2022 of the Disciplinary Committee, Bar Council of India was duly communicated to all the parties including the applicant herein vide letter No. DCLD:2013/2022- 2414A/2022 dated 7.4.2022.
3. It is to submit that the Disciplinary Committee of the Bar Council of India has also decided his D.C. Appeal No. 51/2019, which was also decided on 30.1.2022 and uphold the decision of the State Bar Council, awarding the punishment of two years suspension of practice from the roll of the State Bar Council to the appellant herein, which was to run concurrently with the punishment of suspension from the practice for a period of 5 years as awarded in D.C. Appeal No. 52/2019. The said order was duly communicated to all the parties including the appellant herein vide its letter No. DCLD:2410/2022- 2412/2022 dated 7.4.2023.
4. It is to submit that CPIO has never refused to provide information even though his both the RTIs were treated as representation because the same was not accompanied by the proper RTI fee. It was informed that the Disciplinary Committee being quasi-judicial in nature, the copy of any document can be given to the party on making application along with the requisite fee as prescribed under the Rules of Bar Council of India, however, the appellant herein chose not to submit any requisite fee to get the certified copies as sought in his RTI/representation.
It is pertinent to mention here that the CPIO of the Bar Council of India has furnished all the information available with him to the appellant herein. Although, his both the RTIs were treated as representation/s in absence of statutory RTI fee and the complaint filed under the provision of RTI Act is not maintainable. In view of the above, it is humbly prayed that second appeal/Complaint filed by the appellant does not survive against the CPIO of the Bar Council of India. Hence; Second Appeal/ complaint filed by the petitioner may please be dismissed."
Decision The Commission based on a perusal of the facts on record and upon hearing the contentions of the Complainant during the hearing observes that there is no congruence between the grounds of the complaint and the contentions made during the hearing as the Complainant raised a new ground that the CPIO has not provided him with information after he resubmitted the RTI Applications with proper fees. Even further, the grounds of the complaint also appear absurd 6 and labored as nothing against the provisions of the RTI Act is evinced in the instant matter.
The Complainant appears to be vindicating a grievance by harping on issues that are not even tenable under the RTI Act. In other words, referring to the actual grounds of the instant complaint, nothing in the RTI Application suggests a "life and liberty" matter; Section 6(3) of the RTI Act governs 'transfer of RTI Application' to another public authority and NOT the 'return' of RTI Application to applicants as has been misconceived by the Complainant. Similarly, the CPIO having provided a combined reply for both the above referred RTI Applications does not call for any action under Section 20 of the RTI Act.
Having observed as above, the Commission finds that the complaint grounds under reference and the complaint grounds argued by the Complainant during the hearing are not the same as the Complainant sought to question the alleged action/inaction of the CPIO with respect to a subsequent RTI Application and cause of action that is arising after the date of submission of the instant complaint.
The Complaints are dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani(सरोजपुनहािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ,उप-पंजीयक दनांक / Date 7