Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (2) TMI 868 - DELHI HIGH COURTRight to Information form Bar Council - delay in providing information - Held that:- Perusal of section 6 and also section 36 shows that in its meetings, apart from general function and information, a State Bar Council would be discussing confidential personal matters of advocates. Personal and confidential issues would come up before the Bar Council for consideration. Putting all the minutes in public domain and on the website would imply making public the confidential personal information and also information received by Bar Council in fiduciary capacity. - The minutes would also contain personal information about Advocates who seek financial help on medical ground which would clearly be personal information of the third party. Such information clearly cannot be put in public domain. Under section 12, the accounts of the State Bar Council are to be audited and the State Bar Council is obliged to send a copy of the accounts along with the report of the auditor to the Bar Council of India and also cause the same to be published in the Official Gazette. By publication in the official gazette, the accounts of a State Bar Council, come in public domain. As noticed that the impugned order does not contain any reasons based on which the CIC formed an opinion that the information was required to be put in public domain and on the website. With regard to the show cause notices issued, by the CIC, to the CPIO, for delay in furnishing information, it is noticed that the CPIO had responded to the application filed by Respondent No. 2 within the period of 30 days. The Response itself indicates that whatever information was available, was provided. The CPIO in his reply to the Central Information Commission has indicated that voluminous records had been sought by the respondent no. 2. Respondent No. 2 had sought minutes of full house meetings for the period 01.04.2010 till date of the application which was nearly five years. Apart from contending that the information was exempt, the CPIO in his reply to CIC had relied on the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in “State Information Commissioner Vs. Tushar Dhananjya Mandlekar [2012 (7) TMI 1014 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT]”, whereby the High Court has held that where the required information is general, vague and voluminous in nature, the parties cannot be expected to be provided the required information within 30 days. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 11.08.2015 and 01.12.2015 are quashed. Further, the proceedings initiated by the CIC, requiring the Petitioner to show cause as to why action be not taken for delay in furnishing information are also quashed. The Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
|