Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2017 (2) TMI 868

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....05 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Further, the Commission by order dated 11.08.2015 issued a show cause notice to the PIO as to why the penalty be not imposed for denying the information. By impugned order dated 01.12.2015, another opportunity was granted to CPIO to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed upon him for not providing the information and not complying with the commission's order of uploading the entire information on the website. 2. The respondent no. 2 by her application (filed on 02.03.2015) under the Act, had inter-alia, sought the following information:- " 1. Please supply me certified copies of all the minutes of all full house meetings of Bard Council of Delhi held during the period 01.04.2010 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nished the same vide its reply dated 01.04.2015 to the application which was received on 02.03.2015. It was also mentioned in the said reply that as an audit was being conducted and it was not possible to immediately supply the complete financial information to respondent no. 2 pursuant to the application. 6. None appears for the respondent No. 2. None was present on 18.03.2016, 11.07.2016 and 21.11.2016. Though respondent no. 2 was earlier represented by a counsel, none has been appearing for the said respondents for the last several dates and even today. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that, under orders of this court, the entire information has already been furnished to respondent no. 2. 7. By the impugned order, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....opics by eminent jurists and publish journals and paper of legal interest; (eee) to organise legal aid to the poor in the prescribed manner; (f) to manage and invest the funds of the Bar Council; (g) to provide for the election of its members; (gg) to visit and inspect Universities in accordance with the directions given under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 7; (h) to perform all other functions conferred on it by or under this Act; (i) to do all other things necessary for discharging the aforesaid functions. (2) A State Bar Council may constitute one or more funds in the prescribed manner for the purpose of- (a) giving financial assistance to organise welfare ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... as under: "12. Accounts and audit.- (1) Every Bar Council shall cause to be maintained such books of accounts and other books in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed. (2) The accounts of a Bar Council shall be audited by auditors duly qualified to act as auditors of companies under the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), at such times and in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) As soon as may be practicable at the end of each financial year, but not later than the 31st day of December of the year next following, a State Bar Council shall send a copy of its accounts together with a copy of the report of the auditors thereon to the Bar Council of India and shall cause the same to be published in the Offi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n 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. 18. 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, LPA No. 276 of 2012", whereby the High Court has held that where the required information is general, vague and voluminous in natur....