Central Information Commission
Mam Raj Goel vs Bar Council Of India on 30 June, 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/2019/143519
CIC/BCOIN/A/2019/143522
Shri Mam Raj Goel ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Bar Council of India
PIO
Bar Council of Gujarat
Date of Hearing : 29.06.2021
Date of Decision : 30.06.2021
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Y. K. Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
Since both the parties are same, the above mentioned cases are clubbed
together for hearing and disposal.
Case RTI Filed CPIO reply First appeal FAO 2 nd Appeal
No. on received on
143519 29.09.2017 - 27.11.2017 - 06.09.2019
143522 28.09.2017 - 27.11.2019 - 06.09.2019
Information soughtand background of the case:
(1) CIC/BCOIN/A/2019/143519 The Appellant filed an RTI application before the CPIO, Bar Council of India (BCI) dated 29.09.2017 seeking information following points:-Page 1 of 7
Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.11.207 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/BCOIN/A/2019/143522 The Appellant filed an RTI application before the CPIO, Bar Council of India dated 28.09.2017 seeking information following points:-Page 2 of 7
Having not received any information from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 27.11.207 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:
The Appellant participated in the hearing through audio conference. He denied the receipt of any satisfactory information from BCI and BCG. While acknowledging the receipt of a copy of the written submission from the Bar Council of Gujarat, the Appellant stated that the contents of the same were incorrect and misleading. The Appellant requested to allow him to submit a copy of his reply to the written submission sent by him to the BCI. Subsequent to the hearing, the Commission is in receipt of a reply through email dated 29.06.2021 sent by the Appellant to the Chairman/ Secretary, Bar Council of India with a copy to the Chairman/ Secretary, Bar Council of Gujarat. In his reply, the Appellant has inter alia prayed before Bar Council of India to direct the Bar Page 3 of 7 Council of Gujarat to enrol him for practice as an advocate due to following reasons:
1. "My enrolment application dated 2.9.2015 duly completed in all respects is with the Bar Council of Gujarat.
2. I have already paid due enrolment fee by depositing in the bank account of the Bar Council of Gujarat in Aug/Sep. 2015. BCG has also issued to me money receipt dt 2.9.2015
3. I have already surrendered my Certificate of Practice to the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. By virtue of this surrender, I am not in practice of CA either in my individual capacity or as partner of any firm of chartered accountants. Since 1.10.2018 onwards, I am unemployed. In this respect, I had already informed BCG vide my letter dated 29.10.2018 along with copy of the CP cancellation letter issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. My fundamenal right to earn lawful livelyhood is infringed by BCG.
4. Under section 26 (1) to (3) of the advocates act, the rejection of my enrolment applicaion by the BCG is illegal, ab initio bad at law and unconstituional because BCG did not obtain BCI prior approval for rejection under section 26 (2) & (3). After rejection vide enrolment committee resolution of 31.12.2016, the BCG sent related papers to BCI vide its letter dated 13.3.2018 i.e. after 15 months from the date of rejection. Sir BCI has not taken any decision thereon till today. For want of BCI approval (prior to rejcetion or after rejection), the rejection continues to be irregular & bad at law because power of rejection of enrolment application lies with the BCI only. Therefore my case is still pending for enrolment at BCG."
Quoted verbatim The Appellant also mentioned in his written submission that the Advocates Act, 1961 does not give state bar councils any kind of independent powers to frame rules without due approval of the apex body i.e., the Bar Council of India. He further mentioned that the Bar Council of Gujarat and its enrolment committee members have committed unpardonable blunder and killed his professional career willfully, and with ulterior motive and now seek protection under section 48 of the advocates Act. He also cited the examples of professional institutes/ bodies such as Apex Body of Indian Medical Council; The Institute of Chartered Accountants of India; The Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India; The Institute of Company Secretaries, etc which allow dual practice and suggested the Bar Council of India to open its doors for dual practice.
The Respondent represented by Shri Ashok Kumar Pandey, Jt Secretary, Bar Council of India and Shri P.M. Parmer, I/c Secretary, Bar Council of Gujarat participated in the hearing through audio conference. Shri Pandey while tendering his unconditional apology for the delay in providing the information explained that the RTI applications were inadvertently sent to other department in general dak hence the reply could not be sent on time and they came to know about the RTI at the first appeal stage. Thus, being the FAA, vide order dated 03.01.2018 he directed the CPIO to provide the information to the Appellant positively within a week. In compliance with the direction, the CPIO and Assistant Secretary, CL Department, BCI vide letters dated 07.10.2018 provided point wise information to the Appellant.
Page 4 of 7Shri Parmer referred to the detailed written submission sent to the Commission vide letter dated 22.06.2021 wherein he stated that the Appellant who has a certificate of practice issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) submitted his enrolment form with relevant documents on 02.09.2015 to Bar Council of Gujarat (BCG) for enrolment as an advocate. The Appellant was personally called before the Enrolment Committee of the BCG and after lengthy discussion he was informed to surrender his practicing certificate for Chartered Accountants in accordance with Section 28 (2) (d) and 24 (1) (e) of the Advocates Act, 1961 and thereafter he may be enrolled as an Advocate. In response, the Appellant sent a letter dated 07.07.2015 issued by the ICAI in which it was mentioned that ICAI has no objection if the Bar Council permits the Appellant to be enrolled as an Advocate. The enrolment committee considered that the ICAI may not bar the member who is eligible to practice as an Advocate but the BCG under their rules barred any person who is engaged either in full time or part time service or employment or engaged in any trade or business or profession and they are not entitled to be admitted as Advocates. In view of the above, the Enrolment Committee in its meeting dated 31.12.2016 resolved not to grant enrolment to the Appellant and referred the matter to the BCI. The BCG had sent letter dated 09.02.2017 informing that Appellant's enrolment application cannot be granted and also sent a certified copy of resolution dated 31.12.2016 passed by the Enrolment Committee of BCG. It was also stated that the Appellant had filed a Special Civil Application No 6394/2017 before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat praying that BCG be directed to enrol him as an advocate which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 28.08.2017. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a Letter Patents Appeal No 1522/2017 which was also dismissed vide order dated 13.12.2017. It was stated that the BCG had sent the copy of the enrolment application alongwith the Statement of Grounds to the Bar Council of India on 13.03.2018 for further necessary action. Since no reply was received from BCI reminder letters were sent by BCG vide letters dated 26.10.2019 and 04.12.2019. Thus the enrolment application of Appellant was pending with BCI for refusal u/s 26 (2) of Advocates Act, 1961. Shri Parmer further stated that in compliance with the earlier direction of the CIC dated 27.08.2019 the BCG had provided point wise reply to the Appellant on 28.09.2019 and 09.11.2019. It was also mentioned that BCG is a state level statutory body having its existence under the Advocates Act, 1961. The enrolment rules of the BCG are framed under Section 28 (2) (d) and 24 (1) (d) of the Advocates Act, 1961. While referring to Section 48 of the Act (Indemnity Against Legal Proceedings), Shri Parmer stated that the BCG has provided detailed information to the Appellant.
Decision:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and after considering the lengthy written and oral submissions made by both the parties, the Commission is of the view that appropriate response as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 has been provided by the Respondent, BCI. With regard to the action against BCG, the Commission observes that the same has already been adjudicated by a predecessor bench of the Commission in CIC/BCOI/A/2017/184918 vide orders dated 27.08.2019 and 22.11.2019 and has attained finality. Thus, no further adjudication on the said matter is required by the present bench.Page 5 of 7
With regard to the reply provided by the BCI, the Commission observes that the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 and various rulings of higher court clearly state that as per the Act only such information that is held and available with a public authority can be provided and the mandate of the Commission is to ascertain if the same is done or not. In the present instance, the CPIO, BCI has provided the available information to the Appellant albeit with a delay for which the CPIO, BCI is cautioned to ensure that the same does not recur in future failing which corrective action as per the RTI Act, 2005 may be initiated.
However, the issue whether application for enrolment of the Appellant as an advocate was incorrectly rejected or whether the decision of the BCG has been reviewed by the BCI or not and correctness of the said decision, etc and other disputation of facts are issues outside the scope of adjudication of this Commission.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union of India v. Namit Sharma in REVIEW PETITION [C] No.2309 OF 2012 IN Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. vs. Namit Sharma Review Petition [C] No.2675 OF 2012 In Writ Petition [C] No.210 OF 2012 had held as under:
"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."
Furthermore, the High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. vs. Punjab National Bank and Ors. LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 held as under:
"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailed adjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal of the appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of the respondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before the appropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable the appellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as to what inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to be drawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."
Moreover, in a recent decision in Govt. of NCT vs. Rajendra Prasad WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had held as under:
6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.Page 6 of 7
7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was: (i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified; (iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and (iv) whether any directions under Section 19(8) were warranted. In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.
Thus, in the light of the abovementioned observations, the Commission disposes off the instant Second Appeal with an advice to the Appellant to approach an appropriate forum for redressal of his personal grievance regarding enrolment.
Y. K. Sinha (वाई. के . िस हा) Chief Information Commissioner (मु य सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . िचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 7 of 7