Appellant approached the CIC with the prayer that its earlier order in CIC/AT/C/2010/173 has not been complied with - Appellant: SEBI is asking for further information rather than taking action - CIC: show cause notice issued for imposing penalty

FACTS:

1. Appellant has approached the Commission with the prayer that Commission order in CIC/AT/C/2010/173 has not been complied with.

Proceedings Before the Commission:

2. The appellant made his submissions through videoconference from Jabalpur. The Public Authority is not represented by any officer for video conference from Allahabad. The appellant has submitted that he had made a complaint against an advocate by name K.P.Verma who has taken the fees of Rs. 15,000/- from the appellant but did not attend the court and hence the court had dismissed the appellant’s suit. The appellant is fighting for the recovery of Rs.3.6 lakhs from a finance company by name, Vasundhara Kutumbam against which he is also lodging a complaint in the SEBI. The respondent authority had not taken any action on his complaint against the advocate and instead enquiring from the appellant to send more details about the advocate, like his complete name, father’s name, his date of birth and his enrolment number etc which the appellant claims not able to give as he is away from Allahabad, being a resident of Jabalpur and is helpless to pursue this complaint. The Commission having heard the submissions and perused the record, directs the PIO to furnish the action taken on the complaint of the appellant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission also directs the PIO to show cause why maximum penalty cannot be imposed on him for not responding to the RTI application within the prescribed time. His explanation should reach the Commission within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.

3. The Commission orders accordingly.

(M.Sridhar Acharyulu)

Information Commissioner

Citation: Mukesh Gupta v. Bar Council of U.P. in Case No. CIC/SA/A/2014/000299