Central Information Commission
Mrsanjeev Sharma vs High Court on 14 March, 2016
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110067
Tel : +91-11-26717355
Appeal No. CIC/VS/A/2015/002877, 002356, 002146, 002147, 002555,
002523, 002145, 002150, 002149, 002148, 002875, 002153, 002117,
002120, 002154
(15 cases)
Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Sharma,
R/o 2149, Jalvayu Vihar, Sector67,
Mohali1600062.
Respondent: Central Public Information Officer/Jt.Registrar,
High Court of Punjab & Haryana,
Chandigarh.
Date of Hearing: 14.03.2016
Date of decision: 14.03.2016
ORDER
Facts:
1. The appellant filed RTI applications referred to in the aforesaid appeals. They involve broadly following similar nature of information in respect of Land & Building of Bar Association, advocate Chambers & shops in the Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh and its subordinate Courts at Indri, Hodel, Ambala, Bhiwani, Rajpura, Bilaspur, Chandigarh, Samana, Kharar, Faridabad, Siwani, Kalka, Khanna, Ratia, Jaitu.
2. For the sake of convenience, the brief facts are taken from the appeal no. No. CIC/VS/A/2015/002146, CIC/VS/A/2015/002877 and CIC/VS/A/2015/002555 as follows: Page 1 of 9
No. CIC/VS/A/2015/002146 The appellant filed RTI application on 21.05.2015 seeking information regarding: a) Punjab and Haryana High Court and its subordinate Courts/Govt/Governor/MPLAD and other Govt. agencies have given what financial assistance to District Bar Association, Ambala from 1.1.1996 to 20.5.2015, whether this Bar Association is registered under Constitution of India/Acts of Parliament/any other law, name of the approving/recommending authorities in Punjab & Haryana High Court etc. provide all the policies/proposal/ recommendation/ allotment details of this including file notings in Punjab and Haryana High Court, b) how much money has been spent on the maintenance/new construction of Bar Association Shops and restaurants from public/non public funds from 1.1.1996 to 20.5.2015, along with policies and file notings, who are the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether Punjab & Haryana High Court or its subordinate courts, govt. officers or private etc., who collects rents from them? How much income was derived from these ventures in the last 20 years, how much income tax, sales tax, VAT, Octroi, service tax and other govt. taxes have been paid by Bar Association in the last twenty years, yearwise? c) what other facilities/ subsidies/assistance is provided by Punjab and Haryana High Court to Bar Association like electricity bills, water bills, furnitures etc. d) provide income and expenditure of Bar Association Welfare Fund and Benevolent fund from 1.1.1996 to 20.5.2015 with file notings and policies, e) whether this Bar Association is 'State' as defined under Article 12 of Constitution of India and 'Public Authority' as defined in section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005. If yes, how? If no, why? What are the Supreme Court, Punjab & Haryana Court & Bar Council of India ruling on this? f) Any other relevant information, g) file notings of progress of this RTI. The CPIO responded on 03.06.2015. The appellant filed first appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 11.06.2015. The FAA responded on 16.07.2015. The appellant filed second appeal before the Commission on 11.09.2015.
No. CIC/VS/A/2015/002877 Page 2 of 9 The appellant filed RTI application on 19.05.2015 seeking information on various points relating to: a) particular land in the state of Punjab and Haryana on which some Bar Association, Advocates Chambers and shops of subDivisional Judicial Courts, Indri, are built, whether it is private land or Govt./High Court land, the area of the land, name of the approving/recommending authorities in Punjab & Haryana High Court, If this is govt. land, how much money did it pay to govt. to buy/lease/annual rent? provide all the policies/proposal/ recommendation/allotment details of this land including file notings in Punjab and Haryana High Court; b) how much money has been spent on the maintenance/new construction of Bar Association and Advocates Chambers from public/non public funds from 1.1.1996 to 18.5.2015, alongwith policies and file notings, name of the approving authorities for the expenditure of these public/non public funds, whether Punjab & Haryana High Court or its subordinate courts, govt. officers or private etc., c) who are the members of managing committee including President, Secretary, Treasurer, Vice President, Joint Secretary and Executive Members for the last twenty years, whether they are judicial/govt. officers or private persons, d) number of employees (govt. servants/others) working in Punjab and Haryana High Court or its subordinate courts, to the govt. servants working here get any honorarium and, who decide that? Who issues Form 16 to these employees? Are they paid minimum wages as per govt. law? e) If this land is withdrawn by Punjab and Haryana High Court/Govt., will the Bar Association and Advocates chambers exist? Provide income and expenditure of Bar Association from 1.1.1996 to 18.5.2015 with the file notings and policies. f) Any other relevant information, g) file notings of progress of this RTI. The CPIO responded on 30.05.2015. The appellant filed first appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 11.06.2015. The FAA responded on 16.07.2015. The appellant filed second appeal before the Commission on 7.09.2015.
No. CIC/VS/A/2015/002555 The appellant filed RTI application dated 26.05.2015 seeking information regarding: a) how many Advocates, (with full details), are the members of Sub Division Bar Association, Rajpura & practice in Page 3 of 9 Punjab & Haryana High court and its subordinate Courts, have their names become different/changed in their offices/Vakalatnama/power of attorney from the names mentioned while enrolment in the Bar Council of India (BCI)? What are the policies of Punjab & Haryana High Court, Supreme Court of India & BCI on change of name? How many Advocates have been struck off the rolls of BCI for using different names, in the last twenty years? B) How many Advocates, with full details, who are the members of same Bar Association and practice in Punjab & Haryana High Court and its subordinate Courts, have not filed a single Vakalatnama/power of attorney in any Court after enrolment in the Bar Council of India from 1.1.2014 to 25.5.2015? What are the policies of Punjab & Haryana High Court & BCI on this? How many Advocates have been struck off the rolls of BCI for not doing active legal practice? c) How many Advocates with full details, who are the members of same Bar Association & practice in Punjab & Haryana High Court & its subordinate Courts, have been doing/involved in other business after enrolment in the Bar Council of India? What are the policies of Punjab & Haryana High Court & BCI on such working? How many Advocates have been struck off the rolls of BCI for doing different business other than legal practice, in the last twenty years? e) How many employees, with full details, are working in this Bar Association and what is their pay scale and pay? What are the medical benefits, EPF, insurance and pension benefits available to them. Can they form a trade union? If yes, how? If no, why? f) Any other relevant information, f) file notings of progress of this RTI. The CPIO responded on 30.05.2015. The appellant filed first appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 11.06.2015. The FAA responded on 16.07.2015. The appellant filed second appeal before the Commission on 11.09.2015.
Hearing:
3. The appellant and the respondent both participated in the hearing through video conferencing.
4. The appellant stated that he has filed RTI applications for bringing transparency and reducing corruption in Bar Associations of Punjab & Haryana High Court and he has to write hundreds of RTI applications asking information regarding various courts under the area of responsibility of Punjab & Page 4 of 9 Haryana High Court keeping in view the ratio of full bench judgement of Central Information Commission (CIC) viz CIC/WB/A/2008/00426 dated 06.01.2009 on appeal from Subhash Chandra Agrawal vss Supreme Court of India regarding not transferring the RTI application under section 6(3) of the RTI Act.
5. The appellant stated that he has filed second appeals on two grounds first he has not been provided information and second Bar Associations to be declared Public Authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
6. The appellant stated that he is seeking information relating to land on which court and advocate chamber, shops are built that whether it is private land or Govt/High Court land, area of the land, approving authority in Punjab & Haryana High Court, price and allotment, policy details of the land and the financial assistance given by Punjab & Haryana High Court and its subordinate courts/Government/Governor/MPLAD and other Government agencies to SubDivision Bar Associations during the period 1.1.1996 to 20.5.2015, whether these Bar Association are registered under Constitution of India, who are the approving/recommending authorities of chambers and shops in Punjab & Haryana High Court , guidelines/policies etc. in the referred courts, how much money spent on its maintenance/construction, how much income tax, sales tax, VAT etc. have been paid by the above Bar Association during the last twenty years what other facilities provided to the Bar Association, income and expenditure welfare fund from 1.1.1996 to 20.05.2015, whether this Bar Association is 'State' as defined under Article 12 of Constitution of India and 'Public Authority' as defined in section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005 what are the ruling of Supreme Court of India, etc
7. The appellant stated that the Government and Punjab & Haryana High Court have financial, functional and administrative control over the Bar Association and advocate chambers. The appellant stated that all control lies with the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Punjab & Haryana High Court. Page 5 of 9
8. The appellant stated that information which was available with the Punjab & Haryana High Court should have been provided to him and for the rest his applications should have been transferred under section 6(3) of the RTI Act to the concerned public authorities but respondent neither transferred his applications nor provided the sought for information. The appellant stated that he has been replied by the respondent that the expenditure incurred on the maintenance/construction of building of District Bar Association/ Bar Association in the States of Punjab and Haryana, is by the PWD Punjab, Chandigarh, Haryana.
9. The appellant stated that land & buildings of Bar Association as well as Advocates Chambers is given free of cost by State Government, electricity & water bills fo Bar Association are provided free of cost. The appellant stated that more than 50 shops are run by Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association in Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association in Punjab & Haryana High Court complex.
The rent fixed for these shops are 16000 rupees per month for shops on ground floor & 8000 rupees for upper floors and this results in crores of annual income for Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association.
10. The appellant stated that as per Advocate Act, 1961, the Bar Councils (validation of State Laws) Act, 1956, a monopoly status has been given to Advocates, member of the Bar Association of Punjab & Haryana High Court and subordinate Courts. The appellant stated that section 29 of aforesaid Act provides ' advocate to be the only recognized class of persons entitled to practice law'. Section 6(1)(dd) refers to the function of Bar Council of India to promote the growth of Bar Associations. Advocate Act, 1961 and Certificate of Practice & Renewal Rules, 2014 gives monopoly status to Bar Associations and pervasive control of State over the function of Advocates, Bar Council of India, Bar Association & Advocate Chambers.
11. The appellant stated that there is no demarcation of the building of High Court of Punjab & Haryana and advocate chambers. The appellant stated that the shops are let on rent of Rs. 13987 per month and more than 70 shops have been running, out of that 6 are under the control of Punjab & Page 6 of 9 Haryana High Court and rest with the Bar Association of Punjab & Haryana High Court. The appellant stated that all money goes to Bar Association. The appellant stated that the Bar Association of Punjab & Haryana High Court is substantially funded directly or indirectly by the State and Punjab & Haryana High Court. The appellant stated that Bar Council controlled the dress, behaviour, working hour, chambers, examination, contempt, removal, place of practice, etc of the members of the Bar Association.
12. The appellant stated that Central Public Information officer of the Hon'ble High Court never had intention to give information to him. The appellant stated that respondent did not provide information to him in a malafide manner.
13. The respondent stated that none of the information relates to or is and available with the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The respondent stated that building of the Court is situated on the land which has been allotted by the Government. The respondent stated that CPIO has no authority and it is beyond its jurisdiction to declare any authority as 'public authority.
14. The respondent stated that the bar association works as a self proclaimed body and majority of its expenditure is met out of annual subscription. The respondent stated that the District Bar Associations are not under the administrative control of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. The respondent stated that appellant may approach the appropriate public authority having possession of the sought for information. The respondent stated that the so far as shops running in the High Court building are concerned, they are run by employees association and the income is spent on welfare of the employees. The respondent stated that District Courts are independent public authorities and the appellant may approach them directly.
15. The appellant stated that respondent was not telling the truth and was not bringing the fact clearly. The appellant stated that the facts given by the respondent should be taken on affidavit in exercise of powers conferred under section 18(3) (c) (d) of the RTI Act. The appellant stated that a disciplinary action may be initiated and penalty may be imposed upon respondent as per section 20 of the RTI Act. Page 7 of 9
16. The appellant stated that he wanted to get three reliefs:
(a) he should be provided information available with the Punjab & Haryana High Court;
(b) Bar Associations of Punjab and Haryana States be declared as Public Authority under section of 2(h) of the RTI Act;
(c) respondent be directed to transfer his RTI applications to the concerned public authorities under section 6(3) of the RTI Act
17. The respondent referred to the decision dated 19.11.2015 of this Commission and stated that the appellant is used to filing large number of vexatious RTI applications. The respondent stated that this Commission by its aforesaid decision disposed 3588 cases of the appellant. The respondent requested that a direction be issued that the appellant should not strain the respondents by putting vexatious RTI applications.
18. The respondent stated that appellant did not seek specific information and they are not able to segregate the appellant's RTI applications for transferring the same to appropriate public authorities. Decision
19. The Commission after hearing the submissions of both sides is of the opinion that further written submission may be given by the appellant with a copy to respondent for deciding on the matter. A hearing on the matter will be held on 11.04.2016.
Copy of decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Page 8 of 9
(Radha Krishna Mathur) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy ( Prakash ) Deputy Registrar Page 9 of 9