Central Information Commission
Mr.Pavan Sachdeva vs High Court on 18 April, 2012
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/001011, 1016, 1012, 1131 & 1947
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 18 April 2012
Date of decision : 18 April 2012
Name of the Appellant : Smt. Veena Grover,
44B, Pocket A, Vikas Puri Extn.
Outer Ring Road, New Delhi - 110 018
Shri Pavan Sachdeva
ChairmancumManaging Director,
MS Shoes Ltd., 112A, Ekta Enclave,
New Delhi - 110 087
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, High Court of Delhi,
New Delhi
CPIO, Bar Council of India,
New Delhi
The Appellant was not present in spite of notice.
On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri Rajiv Bansal, Advocate,
(ii) Shri R. Gopalan, PIO,
(iii) Shri Sudhir Sachdeva, Sr. Judl. Assistant,
(iv) Shri Dibya Ranjan Gouda, Jr. Judl. Assistant,
(v) Shri Amar Nath, Jr. Judl. Assistant,
(vi) Shri Rajnikant, Office Supt., BCI
CIC/SM/A/2011/001012 & 1131
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. We heard all these five cases together since the subject matter of these cases is more or less the same. The Appellants did not turn up for the hearing in spite of notice. The Respondents representing the Delhi High Court and the Bar Council of India were present. We heard their submissions.
3. In several RTI applications, both the Appellants had sought a variety of information regarding an advocate by the name Sri ML Sharma and his enrolment as an advocate. In all these cases, the CPIO concerned had provided the available information against some of the queries and had transferred some other queries to some other public authority. The Appellate Authority had, in each of these cases, passed a speaking order endorsing the decision of the CPIO.
4. We carefully examined the RTI queries contained in all these five RTI applications and the reply given by the CPIO in each case. By and large, the available information has been given. Wherever the desired information has not been given, it is either denied because it is a judicial record which must be obtained from the High Court under its own rules and orders and not under the Right to Information (RTI) Act or the information was not held by the High Court itself. For example, the copy of the Vakalatnama furnished by Sri ML Sharma in some cases has not been given on the ground that it should be sought under the relevant order of the High Court. There is nothing wrong in this response. We have held on many occasions that the copies of the judicial records cannot CIC/SM/A/2011/001012 & 1131 be demanded under the Right to Information (RTI) Act since the High Court has its own procedure for disclosing the certified copies of such records. Similarly, the details about the enrolment of this particular advocate are to be found with the respective Bar Council and not in the High Court. Therefore, the CPIO was quite right in transferring this particular query.
5. During the hearing, on behalf of the Bar Council of India, it was contended that they did not hold the details of the enrolment of advocates and any such information would have to be sought from the State Bar Councils. Further, it was argued that since an advocate could be registered with any State Bar Council, no single Bar Council could possibly indicate about the place of registration of an advocate other than its own.
6. The sum total of the facts in all these cases is that the CPIO has provided all the available information and there is nothing more to be disclosed.
7. All the five cases are disposed of accordingly.
8. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
CIC/SM/A/2011/001012 & 1131 (Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2011/001012 & 1131