CIC: It is highly deplorable that Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh has chosen not to send its PIO in spite of hearing notice; SCN for penalty issued - CIC directed PIO of Bar Council of India to look into the entire claim of missing of file & file a report
1. Appellant is present. Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra, Adv., represents Public authority.
2. The Commission in its order dated 25.05.2015 ordered as under:
“4. The Commission heard the submissions and perused the record. The appellant alleges that a conspiracy that led to the killing of his wife, was hatched by the said advocate Shamim Alam Khan. He requires the papers relating to the said advocate’s enrolment, in UP Bar Council, for helping the investigation agency. The UP Bar Council did not respond to his RTI application. Then he approached the Bar Council of India. The PIO/BCI stated that the letter referred to by the appellant was not found in their office. A subsequent letter received from him was answered. FAA did not pass any effective order. Simply he recorded statement of the CPIO and concluded the appeal. The appellant has submitted a set of copies of his correspondence to the PIO/BCI, who says that it is the UP Bar Council which is holding the required information. The Commission, therefore, directs the PIO, UP Bar Council to provide complete pointwise information to the appellant to his RTI application along with the certified copies of the relevant documents within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also directs the CPIO/BCI to request the State Bar Council to provide complete information to the appellant with a copy to their office.
5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly”.
3. The Commission in its order dated 18.12.2015 ordered as under :
3. The appellant complained that order of the CIC dated 25.05.2015 has not been complied with till date and requested to issue show cause notice for noncompliance of Commission’s order. The Commission notices that PIO of Bar Council was not present in the hearing. Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra has filed Vakalatnama in favour of CPIO Bar Council of India and sought two weeks time to comply with the order of the Commission dated 25.05.2015.
4. The appeal is posted on 11.01.2016 at 1500 hours for compliance.
Proceedings Before the Commission:
4. Appellant stated that order of the Commission dated 18.12.2015 was not complied with till today. He stated that he had made complaint against Mr. Shamim Alam Khan alleging that Mr. Shamim Khan is illiterate, yet he became an advocate on the basis of false certificate. During trial before CJM, Haridwar, appellant stated that he appeared as witness for Bar Council of Dehradun. He stated that the then Secretary, Bar Council of U.P. who was the prosecution witness neither gave evidence nor produced the incriminating document/documentary evidence in the court during trial inspite of repeated summons. Mr. Shamim Alam Khan got the benefit and was acquitted. But the appeal against his acquittal was filed before the Hon’ble High Court and the same is pending.
5. Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh on 02.01.2016 wrote a letter to the appellant stating that the file was not traceable and they are making effort to find it. Letter also stated that on the basis of inquiry in the year 1996 conducted by Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, the name of Mr. Gursewak Singh and Mr. Shamim Alam Khan, advocates belonging to Dehradun which is now in State of Uttarkhand have been removed from the State Roll of Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, and it was confirmed through resolution No. 999/1997. Appellant alleged that the above mentioned reply of Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh was simply a ploy to save themself from penalty. He stated that the files are maintained in year wise and district wise in the Bar council. He also alleged that the concerned file remained in personal custody of Shri Prem Nath Tyagi till his retirement.
6. The Commission finds the absence of PIO in the show cause hearing and statement given by Mr. Anjani Kumar Mishra to comply with the order of Commission in the hearing dated 07.12.2015 was not converted into action and at the end conclusion is that the file is still missing. Documents sought by the appellant based on resolution No. 999/1997 were not provided. It is highly deplorable that Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh being a public authority has chosen not to send its PIO in spite of hearing notice. The Commission, therefore, issues show cause notice to CPIO, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh as to why maximum penalty should not be imposed on him for noncompliance of Commission’s order. The explanation should reach the Commission within 21 days from the date of receipt of this Order. The Commission directs CPIO, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh to conduct a thorough search for the file and provide the certified copy of the same to the appellant within 1 month from the date of receipt of this Order.
8. The Commission also directs CPIO of Bar Council of India to look into the entire claim of missing of file by CPIO Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, and file a report before this Commission within 1 month from the date of receipt of this Order. With his observation, the present appeal is disposed of.
(M. Sridhar Acharyulu)
Citation: O P Saklani v. Bar Council of India in Case NO. CIC/SA/A/2014/001718