IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 19682 of 2006 Date of Decision: January 22, 2008 Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana …Petitioner Versus State Information Commission, Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present: Mr. Gaurav Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 24.10.2006 (P-1), passed by the State Information Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, on an application filed by Shri Surinder Pal, Advocate, under Section 18(1)(c) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Shri Surinder Pal, Advocate, has demanded information concerning Group Insurance and Benevolent Fund Scheme mandatorily prescribed by the petitioner Bar Council for practising advocates in Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh. The matter was pending adjudication before the State Information C.W.P. No. 19682 of 2006 Commission when the instant petition was filed and the State Information Commission-respondent No. 1 was restrained from proceeding further. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that the State Information Commission-respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to deal with the issue raised by Shri Surinder Pal- respondent No. 3. The Advocates Act, 1961 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), has been promulgated by the Parliament. It constituted Bar Council for various States and Union Territories. To start with, there was Bar Council for the erstwhile State of Punjab. However, on the re- organisation of the State of Punjab one Bar Council for the States of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and U.T. Chandigarh started functioning, which was splited further by an amendment carried on 25.1.1971, for the State of Himachal Pradesh, separate Bar Council was constituted. Accordingly, the Bar Council for the States of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. Chandigarh has become an inter-State body and came to be known as Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, as per the provisions of Section 3(1)(d) of the Act. There are express provisions made by Section 72 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (for brevity, ‘the 1966 Act). According to Section 72, if a body corporate constituted, inter alia, by or under a Central Act or a State Act for the erstwhile State of Punjab or any part thereof serves the needs of successor States or has become an inter-State body corporate then it should continue to function and operate in those areas subject 2 C.W.P. No. 19682 of 2006 to such directions as may from time to time be issued by the Central Government. Section 72 of the 1966 Act reads thus:- “72. General Provisions as to statutory corporations.- (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided by the foregoing provisions of this Part, where any body corporate constituted under a Central Act, State Act or Provincial Act for the existing State of Punjab or any part thereof serves the needs of the successor States or has, by virtue of the provisions of Part II, become an inter-State body corporate, then, the body corporate shall, on and from the appointed day, continue to function and operate in those areas in respect of which it was functioning and operating immediately before that day, subject to such directions as may from time to time be issued by the Central Government, until other provision is made by law in respect of the said body corporate. (2) Any direction issued by the Central Government under sub-section (1) in respect of any such body corporate may include a direction that any law by which the said body corporate is governed shall, in its application to that body corporate, have effect to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in the direction. 3 C.W.P. No. 19682 of 2006 (3) For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that the provisions of this section shall apply also to the Panjab University constituted under the Panjab University Act, 1947, the Punjab Agricultural University constituted Act, 1947, the Punjab Agricultural University constituted under the Punjab Agricultural University Act, 1961, and the Board constituted under the provisions of Part III of the Sikh Gurudawaras Act, 1925. (4) For the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this section in so far as it relates to the Panjab University and the Punjab Agricultural University referred to in sub-section (3) the successor States shall make such grants as the Central Government may, from time to time, by order, determine.” A bare perusal of Section 72 of the 1966 Act reveals that at the time of promulgation of the 1966 Act all those bodies which were incorporated under a Central Act, State Act or Provincial Act for the existing State of Punjab or any part thereof are to become an inter-State body corporate. Such bodies including the petitioner Bar Council has to continue to function and operate in those areas in respect of which it was functioning and operating immediately before the specified date i.e. 1.11.1966, subject to such directions as may from time to time be issued by the Central Government. However, such direction could be issued by the Central Government till the 4 C.W.P. No. 19682 of 2006 time, other provision is made by law in respect of the said body corporate. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Dayanand Anglo Vedic College v. State of Punjab, AIR 1972 P&H 170, has an occasion to consider Section 72 of the 1966 Act and numerous observations have been made. We do not wish to go into details of those observations but feel content to observe that the object of the provision was not to give power of governance to the inter-State corporations but to make their services available to the successor States till such time the successor States could make their own arrangements. It is, thus, obvious that the petitioner Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, as envisaged by Section 3(1)(d) of the Act, became inter-State body and was subject to the directions to be issued by the Central Government. Therefore, the States of Punjab, Haryana or U.T. Chandigarh do not have any control over the petitioner Bar Council and cannot be construed to be appropriate Government within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 because both the States or U.T. Chandigarh do not exercise any control over the petitioner Bar Council. The appropriate authority in the case of Bar Council obviously would be the Central Government and, therefore, the Chief Information Commission as envisaged under Section 12 of 2005 Act would be competent to deal with the issue raised by Shri Surinder Pal-respondent No. 3. 5 C.W.P. No. 19682 of 2006 Mr. Amar Vivek, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 even otherwise has stated that the application, in fact, was moved before the Central Information Commission, which was erroneously sent to the State Information Commission and the same was not competent. In view of the above, order dated 24.10.2006 (P-1) and all proceedings by the State Information Commission are set aside. A direction is issued to the Central Information Commission to adjudicate the issue. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Central Information Commission at Delhi on 11.2.2008. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (T.P.S. MANN) January 22, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 6