CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/PA/A/2009/000008 dated 31-12-2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Section 19
Appellant: Shri Atanu Biswas,
Respondent: High Court of Calcutta
Decision announced 5.08.2010
FACTS
By an application of 25.2.2009 Shri Atanu Biswas of District Burdwan, West
Bengal applied to CPIO, Office of Official Liquidator, High Court of Calcutta,
Kolkata seeking the following information:
“A copy of the list of advocates/ Counsels on the roll of the official
liquidator with fees structure.
Names & Addresses of the Advocates and the number of cases
allotted to them between January, 2007 to January, 2009.”
To this appellant Shri Atanu Biswas received a response dated 13.3.2009
from the Office of the Official Liquidator informing him as follows:
“The official Liquidator is an Officer of the Hon’ble High Court,
Calcutta. The Official Liquidator works under the direct control and
supervision of the Hon’ble Judge taking Company matters.
In the letter as above, you have requested for supply of the copy of
the list of Advocates/ Counsels on the roll of the Official Liquidator
and names and address of the Advocates and the number of cases
allotted to them between January, 2007 to January, 2009.
In this connection, I am to inform you that time to time the Hon’ble
High Court, Calcutta empanelled the names of Advocates for legal
assistance in liquidation proceedings and the records maintained
by the concerned Department of the Hon’ble High court, Calcutta.
No comprehensive list is available with this office.
I am to further inform you that no such types of records maintained
from where the cases allotted for entire Companies (In Liquidation)
will be provided.”
1
Aggrieved by this response Shri Atanu Biswas moved an appeal before the
First Appellate Authority, office of the Official Liquidator on 23.3.2009 arguing as
follows:-
“f) For that the CPIO has erred by ignoring the doctrine
prescribed in section 4 and its sub-sections of the RTI Act,
2005.
g) For that the CPIO has erred to appreciate that without a list
of Advocates/ Counsels allotment of work cannot be done by
any organisation in a whimsical manner nor there can be any
element of transparency.
i) For that the CPIO has erred in issuing his reply without any
clarification as to the alternative mechanism of allotment of work to the
Advocates/ counsels adopted by the Office of the Official Liquidator as
required under the provision of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of
the RTI Act, 2005.”
On this Shri G. Mukhopadhyay, Appellate Authority-cum, Official Liquidator,
High Court, Calcutta responded on 24.4.2009 with the following order:-
“The matter has been examined by me based on the documents
available in the O/o the Official Liquidator, High Court, Calcutta and
it is observed that no list of the empanelled advocates of this office
is updated and/ or consolidated, and also, the information was
provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 13.3.2009 with due approval
of the Official Liquidator, high Court, Calcutta. Further, it has been
verified that no separate register is maintained or should have been
statutorily maintained by the office of the Official Liquidator, High
Court, Calcutta in regard to allotment of cases to empanelled
advocates pertaining to entire range of Companies (In Liquidation).
However, for specific individual companies, the said information
can be provided from specific file of such companies. As the
information sought for are not maintained in either a general format
in regard to allotment of cases to advocate or not
updated/consolidated in terms of addition of Advocate in the Panel
by Hon’ble High Court on various dates and exclusion of advocates
from the list due to death or for any other reason, the CPIO perhaps
was not in position to supply the specific requirements of the
appellant. Hence, the allegation a per the appellant’s letter against
the CPIO or CAPIO for suppressing the information cannot be
established and they have also not outright rejected the appellant’s
request to provide information.
As per the RTI Act, 2005, the CPIO and CAPIO are not responsible
for decorating or manufacturing any information. However, they2
can provide such information which is readily available in the office
as per the office system. Therefore, I accept the decision of CPIO
and the appeal stands dismissed to that particular context.
However, considering all the aspects, the CPIO is directed to
supply the Court’s order in regard to empanelment of Advocate
after obtaining it from the Legal Cell, whatever is available.”
In compliance with the orders of the first Appellate Authority, CPIO Shri D.
K. Singh provided the copies of the High Court order to appellant Shri Atanu
Biswas seeking deposit of Rs. 22/-.
This has brought appellant Shri Atanu Biswas before us in his second
appeal, in which he has prayed as follows:-
“i) An order quashing or setting aside the order dated
24.4.2009 made by the First Appellate Authority.
ii) An order directing the First Appellate Authority to supply the entire
list of Advocates/ Counsels with the particulars of allotment of cases and
remuneration paid to them between January 2007 and January 2009
within a time stipulated by the Ld. Commission.
iii) An order directing the First Appellate Authority to inform the
appellant about the alternative mechanism since adopted for allotment of
cases to the Advocates without any updated list.
iv) An enquiry is made against withholding/ non disclosure of
information practised in the Official Liquidator Office, Calcutta being a
public authority and accountability be fixed on the Official authorised to
keep the information updated for disseminating to public.”
The appeal was heard through videoconference on 5-8-2010. The
following are present.
Appellant at NIC Studio at Burdwan
Shri Atanu Biswas
Respondents at NIC Studio at Kolkata
Shri D. K. Singh, CPIO
Shri P. Achyut Ramaiah, representing Appellate Authority.
Appellant Shri Atanu Biswas confirmed having received the papers sent by
CPIO Shri D. K. Singh with the letter of 22.5.2009 and having paid the amount
requested. On the other hand Shri D. K. Singh submitted that on examination of
the complete records in response to the RTI request he finds that lists of
Advocates and Counsels enrolled by the Official Liquidator, together with fees
3
structure, is available in scattered form in different files of the office. These,
however, having not been compiled, he is prepared to do so now. On the other
hand Shri P. Achyut Ramaiah submitted that the addresses of the Advocates and
number of cases allotted to them between January 2007 to January 2009 are not a
matter of record in the office of Official Liquidator. He, however, submitted that for
specific individual companies, the said information can be provided from the
specific file of such companies. Upon this, which is the point that has been made
by Appellate Authority in disposing of the first appeal, Shri Atanu Biswas submitted
that he was not seeking information on the latter.
DECISION NOTICE
The demand of CPIO for fee of Rs. 22/- on 22.5.2009 in providing the
information directed to be provided by the Appellate Authority is not in order, since
the information sought should have been provided within the time mandated and
such fee is forfeit under section 7 (6) to a public authority that has not provided the
information within the time laid down in section 7 (1). Nevertheless to the extent
the deal has been concluded any ruling on the matter by this Commission will
unnecessarily keep an issue alive which has not agitated either party. This,
however, may be noted by CPIO in future disposal.
On the question of list of Advocates/ Counsels on the roll of the Official
Liquidator with fee structure the argument of appellant, Shri Atanu Biswas is that
such a list is important for such organisations who wish to avail of their services.
Since this information is available in scattered form as conceded by CPIO Shri D.
K. Singh, we now direct CPIO under section 19 (8) (a) (i) to take such steps as
may be necessary to compile this information and upload it on the website of office
of the Official Liquidator, in accordance with section 4 (1) (b) (vii) & (xiii). Such
information will now be compiled within 20 working days of the date of receipt of
this decision notice and provided to appellant Shri Biswas, thereafter uploading the
same on the website within 30 working days of the date of receipt of this decision
notice in accordance with Sec 4(2), and thereafter update this publication at least
4
every year as required under Sec 4(1) (b). The appeal is thereby allowed. There
will be no costs.
Announced in the hearing. Notice of this decision be given free of cost to
the parties.
(Wajahat Habibullah)
Chief Information Commissioner
5-8-2010
Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against
application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of
this Commission.
(Pankaj K.P. Shreyaskar)
Joint Registrar
5-8-2010
5