CIC: designation of CPIO and FAA has not been done by the Bar Council of Delhi (a statutory body constituted under the Advocates Act, 1961) even after more than 8 years of enactment of RTI Act - penalty of Rs 25,000/- on Hony. Secretary for causing delay
4 Jun, 2014ORDER
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 years.
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 of the past ten years.”
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) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. 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) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. 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, 2nd 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)
Chief Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal v. Bar Council of Delhi in Case No. CIC/SS/C/2013/000276