UNI; Saturday, February 19, 2011,
The Goa Chief Information Commissioner Motilal Kenny will on February 28 deliver his verdict on the complaint filed by Advocate Aires Rodrigues against the Advocate General of Goa Subodh Kantak for not complying with provisions of the Right to Information Act.
Arguments in the case were heard today.
Appearing on behalf of Advocate General (AG) Subodh Kantak, Mahesh Sonak argued that the Advocate General was not a 'Public Authority' and does not come within the purview of the RTI Act.
Advocate Aires Rodrigues, however, submitted that the AG was very much a public authority his being a constitutional post and even enjoying cabinet status.
He submitted that the Advocate General as a 'public authority' was required under Section 5 of the Act to designate within 100 days Public Information Officers to provide information to persons requesting the same from the AG's office.
Adv Rodrigues has also stated that Section 4 of the Act required the Advocate General to publish and make public within 120 various information details about the AG's office.
He also sought the AG of Goa be penalised in terms of section 20 of the RTI Act for not complying with the provisions of the Act for over five years.
Meanwhile, Mr Kenny will on February 18 deliver his order on Goa Governor Dr S S Sidhu's plea for constitutional immunity in the RTI case filed against him by Adv Rodrigues.
Adv Rodrigues’s complaint against Governor Sidhu follows the stand taken by the Raj Bhavan that the Governor of Goa is not a public authority and does not come within the purview of the Act.
In his petition, Adv Rodrigues has stated that the office of the Governor is a constitutional post within the definition of 'Public authority' under section two (h) (a) of the Act.
He has stated that as the Governor is a public authority and with even PIOs under the Act being notified, that Raj Bhavan was bound to furnish the information sought and that the refusal was unreasonable, malafide and without reasonable cause. UNI
.JPG)
.JPG)
