Appellant: The compensation amount of Rs. 5,000/- has been paid by the Bar Council of Gujarat - CIC: There has been a considerable delay in providing the information and compensation; The PIO to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur

O R D E R

1. The Commission, vide order dated 07.09.2018, directed the respondent to take up the matter of complaint made against Mr. Bavabhai Valji Rathod, Advocate with the competent authority in light of case details provided by the appellant and provide a reply to the appellant indicating the factual position in the matter. The respondent was further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant as per Section 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the RTI Act.

2. The appellant filed complaints dated 06.02.2019 and 07.06.2019 regarding non-compliance of the Commission’s above-mentioned order.

3. The comments of the respondent on the appellant’s non-compliance petition were called vide Commission’s letter dated 08.08.2019.

4. The respondent, vide letter dated 20.09.2019, informed the Commission that in compliance with the order of the Commission dated 07.09.2018, requisite information has been provided to the appellant along with the compensation of Rs. 5,000/- vide cheque bearing no. 019829 dated 20.09.2019. The respondent, vide another letter dated 28.11.2019, informed the Commission that with respect to the information sought regarding the complaint made against Mr. Bavabhai Valji Rathod, Advocate, the appellant, vide letter dated 18.11.2019, was informed that his complaint against the said advocate has been received. However, in order that action be taken against the said advocate, the appellant has to file his complaint as per the procedure specified under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.

Hearing on 03.12.2019:

5. The appellant Shri Mathuradas G Kaneria, and the respondent Shri P.M.Parmar, Incharge Secretary and CPIO, Bar Council of Gujarat attended the hearing through video conferencing.

6. The appellant submitted that the Commission vide order dated 07.09.2018 directed the respondent to take up the matter of complaint made against Mr. Bavabhai Valji Rathod, Advocate with the competent authority in light of case details provided by the appellant and provide a reply to the appellant indicating the factual position in the matter. The respondent was also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant as per Section 19(8)(b) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered; of the RTI Act. The appellant submitted that the compensation amount of Rs. 5,000/- has been received by the appellant vide cheque bearing no. 019829 dated 20.09.2019, but no information, as directed by the Commission, has been provided by the respondent. The appellant requested the Commission to impose penalty on the respondent as per Section 20 of the RTI Act for not providing the information sought despite the Commission’s order.

7. The respondent submitted that he has duly complied with the order of the Commission dated 07.09.2018. Reiterating the stand taken by him in his letters dated 20.09.2019 and 28.11.2019, the respondent submitted that the direction with regards to the payment of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant has been duly complied with, as agreed by the appellant as well. Further, with regards to the direction to take up the matter of complaint made against Mr. Bavabhai Valji Rathod, Advocate with the competent authority and provide a reply to the appellant indicating the factual position in the matter, the complaint made by the appellant was taken up with the competent authority. Since the complaint was not filed as per the prescribed procedure, no action could be taken on the said complaint. The appellant, vide letter dated 18.11.2019, was informed accordingly apprising him of the procedure to file a complaint against an advocate as laid down under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961. Thus, no further action remains to be taken on part of the respondent.

Decision:

8. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and perusing the records, observes that although the respondent has complied with the directions of the Commission, there has been a considerable delay in providing the information and compensation to the appellant. The Commission takes a serious note of this lapse and counsels the CPIO to be more careful in future so that such lapses do not recur. No further action is required in the matter. Accordingly, the matter is closed at Commission’s level.

9. With the above observations, the non-compliance complaint is disposed of.

10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

 Sudhir Bhargava  

Chief Information Commissioner

Citation: Mathuradas G Kaneria v. CPIO, Bar Council of Gujarat in Appeal No. CIC/SA/C/2016/900033, Date of order: 04.12.2019