As regards delayed reply to the Complainant’s RTI application, the
Commission is of the opinion that Shri Murari Tiwari has not only failed to furnish
the information to the Complainant within the time specified in subsection (1) of
section 7 of the RTI Act, but has also persistently caused obstruction to the supply
of information by not responding to repeated notices of the Commission. Shri
Murari was given several opportunities (as mentioned above) by the Commission to
explain as to why he has not replied to the Complainant’s RTI application. However,
he did not even consider it necessary to respond to Commission’s notices.
Thus, the Commission holds Shri Murari Tiwari, Hony., Secretary, Bar
Council of Delhi fully responsible for not furnishing the information to the
Complainant in respect of his RTI application dated 01.04.2013, thereby causing a
delay and obstruction to the supply of information to the Complainant for more than
10 months.
The Commission accordingly, by the power vested in it under section 20(1)
of the RTI Act, hereby imposes a penalty of Rs. 25,000/ (Twenty Five Thousand)
only on Shri Murari Tiwari, Hony., Secretary, Bar Council of Delhi for causing a
delay of more than 10 months in providing information to the Complainant without
any reasonable cause.
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, ‘B’ Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/C/2013/000276
May 15, 2014
Complainant : Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal
Respondents : Bar Council of Delhi
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 01.04.2013 before the CPIO,
Delhi Bar Council, New Delhi seeking following information:
“1.
The number of cases filed against advocates under section
35 of the Advocates Act in each of the past 10 years
2.
The number of cases which were disposed of in each of the
past 10 years for complaints filed under section 35 of the
Advocates Act
3.
The number of Advocates who were found in violation of
section 35 of the Advocates Act in each of the past 10
4.
The number and percentage of complaints filed under
section 35 that were disposed within one year of the
complaint being filed with the Bar Council of Delhi for each
past ten years.”
years.
of the
2.
Since the Complainant did not receive any reply from the CPIO even after
the expiry of time limit as specified in subsection (1) of section 7 of the RTI Act, he
filed the instant complaint before the Commission on 17.05.2013.
3.
Acting on this complaint, the Commission issued a notice dated 05.11.2013
to Shri Murari Tiwari, Hony. Secretary, Bar Council of Delhi directing him to appear
before the Commission on 13.12.2013 at 03.30. The Complainant was also advised
that he may attend the hearing in person of through his authorised representative or
he may chose not to be present.
4.
Shri Murari Tiwari however did not appear before the Commission on the
scheduled date (i.e. 13.12.2013). Neither did he file any reply to the complaint in
question.
5.
The Commission accordingly adjourned the matter to 03.02.2014 at 02:45
p.m. and issued another notice dated 03.01.2014 to Shri Murari Tiwari directing him
to appear before the Commission on the scheduled date. A copy of this notice was
also sent to the Complainant. The Commission also, considering the fact that no
reply had been furnished to the Complainant to his RTI application, directed Shri
Murari Tiwari, Hony. Secretary & CPIO to show cause why penalty of Rs. 25,000/
should not be imposed upon him under section 20(1) of the RTI Act for not
furnishing the reply to the Complainant to his RTI application dated 01.04.2013.
6.
However, even after having been directed second time, Shri Murari chose
not to appear before the Commission without any reasonable cause and sent a
Supervisor (Shri V.B.S. Sirohi) of the Bar Council of Delhi to represent in the matter
that too without any legal authorization. Shri Murari also did not file his reply to
show cause notice (dated 03.01.2014) issued to him. It was also informed to the
Commission that the Bar Council of Delhi has not so far designated CPIOs and
Appellate Authority under the RTI Act.
7.
The Commission however, in the interest of justice, decided to give one
more opportunity to Shri Murari and accordingly adjourned the matter to 05.03.2014
at 14:30 hrs. A notice dated 05.02.2014 (third time) was accordingly issued to Shri
Murari Tiwari, Hony. Secretary directing him to appear before the Commission on
the scheduled date.
8.
However, this time also Shri Murari failed to comply with the Commission’s
direction and remained absent on the date of hearing (05.03.2014). Neither did he
file any written reply.
9.
The Commission then issued an order dated 10.03.2014, operative part of
which reads as under:
“In view of the continuous non compliance of the directions of this
Commission the copy of this order shall be provided to the present
Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Bar Council of Delhi for designating
the concerned officer for hearing. The concerned
order/notification for the
appointment of the CPIO and first appellate authority shall also be brought on
record. The appeal shall be listed for hearing and fresh notice be issued.”
10.
The matter was thereafter listed for 11.04.2014 at 03:15 p.m. and a notice
dated 19.03.2014 was issued to Hony Secy. CPIO to appear before the
Commission. He was also directed to bring a copy of his written reply to show
cause notice dated 03.01.2014 and a copy of relevant order/Notification for the
appointment of the CPIO and the first Appellate Authority. This hearing was
however postponed and was rescheduled for 30.04.2011 at 11:30 Hrs. A notice to
this effect was sent to the Hony. Secretary & CPIO and the Complainant vide letter
dated 25.03.2014.
11.
However this time also Shri Murari Tiwari, Hony Secretary chose not to
appear before the Commission, nor did he file any reply to show cause notice. The
Complainant was however present in person. Shri V.B.S. Sirohi, (Supervisor), who
has now been designated as CPIO after the Commission’s order, came late and
was allowed to make his submission.
12.
Shri Sirohi informed the Commission that he has been designated as CPIO
on 15.03.2014, after which he furnished the point wise reply to the Complainant
vide letter dated 24.03.2014 corresponding to his RTI application dated 01.04.2013.
He however, when asked, had no explanation as to why Shri Murari is not present
for hearing this time also and why no reply to show cause notice has been
submitted by him to the Commission despite repeated notices.
13.
The Commission is shocked by the fact that the Bar Council of Delhi—a
statutory body constituted under the Advocates Act, 1961—had not designated
CPIO, CAPIO and First Appellate Authority even after more than eight years of the
enactment of the RTI Act, 2005, while as per section 5 of the RTI Act it is the
statutory obligation of every public authority to designate CPIOs and CAPIOs within
100 days of enactment of the RTI Act. This shows a sheer disobedience and
disrespect of the statute (RTI Act) by this public authority. It is only after the
Commission’s order this public authority has woken up to its statutory obligation.
Even now no notification appointing First Appellate Authority has been placed on
record. The Commission also notices that the CPIO (Supervisor) appointed by the
Bar Council of Delhi is not an officer, who is competent to take independent
decisions while dealing with RTI applications. He is a Supervisor.
14.
In view of the above, the Commission hereby recommends to the head of
the public authority viz., Chairman, Bar Council of Delhi to reconsider the
appointment of the CPIO in line with other Bar Councils across the country,
including the Bar Council of India.
15.
As regards delayed reply to the Complainant’s RTI application, the
Commission is of the opinion that Shri Murari Tiwari has not only failed to furnish
the information to the Complainant within the time specified in subsection (1) of
section 7 of the RTI Act, but has also persistently caused obstruction to the supply
of information by not responding to repeated notices of the Commission. Shri
Murari was given several opportunities (as mentioned above) by the Commission to
explain as to why he has not replied to the Complainant’s RTI application. However,
he did not even consider it necessary to respond to Commission’s notices.
16.
Thus, the Commission holds Shri Murari Tiwari, Hony., Secretary, Bar
Council of Delhi fully responsible for not furnishing the information to the
Complainant in respect of his RTI application dated 01.04.2013, thereby causing a
delay and obstruction to the supply of information to the Complainant for more than
10 months.
17.
The Commission accordingly, by the power vested in it under section 20(1)
of the RTI Act, hereby imposes a penalty of Rs. 25,000/ (Twenty Five Thousand)
only on Shri Murari Tiwari, Hony., Secretary, Bar Council of Delhi for causing a
delay of more than 10 months in providing information to the Complainant without
any reasonable cause.
18.
The head of the public authority viz., Chairman, Bar Council of Delhi is
hereby directed to recover the above amount of penalty (of Rs. 25,000/) in five
monthly installments, from Shri Murari Tiwari, Hony., Secretary, Bar Council of
Delhi, and remit the same to the Commission by way of Demand Draft in favour of
PAO, CAT, New Delhi and send the same to Shri Tarun Kumar, Joint Secretary &
Additional Registrar of the Central Information Commission, 2 nd Floor, August
Kranti Bhawan, New Delhi-110066. The amount may be deducted @ Rs. 5000/-
(Rupees five thousand) per month from the salary of Shri Murari Tiwari and
remit by the 10th of every month starting from 10th of July, 2014. The total
amount of Rs. 25,000/- will be remitted by 10th of November, 2014.
19.
Considering the state of the implementation of RTI Act in the Bar Council of
Delhi, the Commission would also like to advise the Bar Council of India (A
Supervisory body over all Bar Councils) to look into matter and submit a report to
the Commission within 1 month of receipt of this order.
(Sushma Singh)
6
Chief Information Commissioner
Authenticated by
(D.C. Singh)
Deputy Registrar
CIC/SS/C/2013/000276
Page 7 of 10
8
Chairman
Bar Council of India
21, Rouse Avenue Institutional Area
Near Bal Bhavan
New Delhi 110 002
Chairman
Bar Council of Delhi
2/6, Sri Fort Institutional Area
Khel Gaon Marg
New Delhi 110049
Address to the Parties:
1. Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal
T8 Eagleton Golf Resort
30 km Bangalore Mysore Highway
Bidadi, Bangalore South District
Bangalore 562109
2. Shri Murari Tiwari
Hony. Secretary
Bar Council of Delhi
2/6, Sri Fort Institutional Area
Khel Gaon Marg
New Delhi 110049
3. Shri V.B.S. Sirohi
CPIO
Bar Council of Delhi
2/6, Sri Fort Institutional Area
Khel Gaon Marg
New Delhi 110049
Copy for information and necessary action to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Joint Secretary (Law),
CIC, New Delhi.
Shri Tarun Kumar, Joint Secretary, Administration, CIC, New Delhi.
Shri D.C. Singh, Deputy Secretary/Deputy Registrar, CIC, New Delhi.
10
No comments:
Post a Comment