Appellant made a complaint against one advocate enrolled with Bar Council - Respondent: the complaint was inquired & dismissed as baseless - CIC: provide the basis for treating the trials against the advocates as secret, when every trial in court is open
Parties Present: The appellant is present.
The Public Authority is represented by Mr. VBS Sirohi.
2. Complainant sought information with respect to a complaint filed by him against Shri Bhola Ram, Advocate on 26.9.2013, namely, whether any hearing has been held for the disposal of complaints against this advocate; if so, date of hearing; detail of pending complaint in a given format; list of complaint is heard after submission of his complaint and reason for suppressing his complaint; next date of hearing of complaint.
3. CPIO gave para wise reply.
Ground for First Appeal:
4. CPIO has provided unsolicited and irrelevant information and has not even provided the status of his complaint.
Ground For Second Appeal :
5. Neither CPIO nor FAA provided the status of his complaint.
Proceedings Before the Commission:
6. Both the parties made their submissions. The appellant made a complaint against one advocate by name Mr. Bhola Ram who is enrolled with the respondent authority. As per the submissions made by the respondent officer, the said complaint was inquired by the competent authority, who dismissed the same as baseless. But the appellant is not satisfied with this information. He is seeking details of all the advocates against whom complaints are made and how many are disposed of, etc and this information, as submitted by the respondent authority, is not maintained by them. The appellant also submitted that he paid Rs.7,000/ by cheque to the said advocate who did not do his case and returned his papers, without returning his fees. An appeal before the Bar Council of India is pending in this regard. The CPIO is his letter dated 27-3-2014 claimed that, “With regard to the details of pending complaints, it is informed that Bar Council of Delhi is a statutory body having quasi-judicial powers to conduct inquiry and trial against advocates, who commit professional or other misconduct and the proceedings and details of the enquiries and trials are always kept secret form any stranger till the enquiry gets it finality.” The Commission having heard these submissions does not accept the contention of the respondent authority that the trails regarding the complaints against the advocates are not open and they are conducted secretly.
7. The Commission having heard the submissions and perused the record, considers that the appellant has been furnished the relevant information regarding his complaint against the advocate. But the Commission directs the respondent authority to provide the basis for treating the trials against the advocates as secret, when every trial in the courts is open. This information shall be provided to the Commission within one month from the date of receipt of this order, with a copy to the appellant. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Citation: Mr. M.K Gupta v. Bar Council Of Delhi in Case No. CIC/SA/A/2014/000939