AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J.Â
1.Petitioner herein is a practicing Advocate. Respondent No. 4 Anant Ram Negi is a litigant and the petitioner is representing the opposite party in
number of cases instituted against Anant Ram Negi aforesaid. Respondent No. 4 has made an application to the PIO-cum-Secretary, Bar Council of
Himachal Pradesh under the Right to Information Act with a prayer to supply him the information as to from which university the petitioner did his LLB
and certified copy of the documents i.e. degree/diploma etc. of the petitioner have also been sought to be supplied. The PIO-cum-Secretary, Bar Council
of Himachal Pradesh has, however, turned down the prayer so made by respondent No. 4 on the grounds, inter-alia, that the information sought to be
supplied is personal, hence cannot be supplied to the applicant- respondent No. 4 herein. Also that, no public purpose would be served by supplying such
information to respondent No. 4.
2.Respondent No. 4 has challenged the order passed by the PIO-cum-Secretary, Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh before the Appellate Authority i.e.
the Chairman, Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh. The appeal, however, met the same fate being dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The respondent
No. 4 preferred appeal before the State Information Commissioner against the aforesaid order. The said appeal has been allowed vide order under
challenge in this writ petition and the PIO-cum- Secretary, Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh has been directed to supply the sought for information to
respondent No. 4 herein, free of costs.
3.Having gone through the record produced by learned Counsel representing the Bar Council of Himachal Pradesh and learned Counsel on both sides, in
our considered opinion, the information sought to be supplied by respondent No. 4 does not fall under any exempted category within the meaning of
Section 8(j) of the Right to Information Act. Even if the information sought to be supplied is treated personal to the petitioner, the disclosure thereof is
required in the larger public interest because the petitioner is a lawyer by profession and the public including respondent No. 4 has the right to know as to
whether he is qualified lawyer or not. The information if supplied does not amount to invasion of the privacy of the petitioner. The information rather has
direct nexus with the public at large because the petitioner is a lawyer by profession. Learned State Information Commissioner, therefore, has not
committed any illegality or irregularity while allowing the application made by respondent No. 4 and directing the PIO-cum-Secretary, Bar Council of
Himachal Pradesh to supply the requisite information. It is further clarified that only the information as per record qua enrollment of the petitioner
maintained in the Bar Council has to be supplied and not the certified copies of his degree/diploma etc. as the same are not required by the respondent
No. 4 nor any public purpose is likely to be served by supplying the copies thereof.
4.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.",,