Times of India: Panaji: Saturday, August 25, 2018.
In a fresh
twist to the case of applicability of Right to Information Act to the Raj
Bhavan, Goa chief information commissioner (CIC), on Friday, sought the
government lawyer’s view on a decade-old notification that listed the
governor’s secretariat as a public authority to provide information under the
law.
Referring to
the legal principle of promissory estoppel, which says that once a statement is
made by any party, including the government, it cannot be denied, CIC Prashant
Tendolkar pointed to the circular issued by the director of information and
publicity in 2007 listing all public authorities, including the governor’s
secretariat. The communication mentioned the joint secretary as public
information officer (PIO) of Raj Bhavan and the secretary to the governor as
appellate authority.
Government
advocate P Dangui said there was no mandate under the law to appoint a PIO as
the office of the governor is not a public authority under the RTI Act and as
such does not come under the purview of the act. He said that the Raj Bhavan is
not a legal entity and merely because other Raj Bhavans in the country and the
Rashtrapati Bhavan have appointed PIOs, it did not mean that the Goa Raj Bhavan
must follow suit.
Dangui argued
that the governor enjoys immunity and is not engaged in the day-to-day
functioning of the government. Decisions are taken by various departments and
the governor is only the executive head, he said. Any information available can
be obtained from the department concerned, he said.
Tendolkar
observed that the Raj Bhavan receives government aid and questioned why it
should not come under the purview of the act.
The CIC also
inquired from complainant advocate Aires Rodrigues whether he filed an
application seeking information. Rodrigues replied that he couldn’t submit a
request because there is no PIO. “They still say they’re not a public authority
and don’t have to appoint a PIO,” he told the commission.
Refuting
Dangui’s stand that the Goa Raj Bhavan is not a legal entity, Rodrigues pointed
out that the same legal entity responded to the case at the state information
commission, the high court and even the Supreme Court in the past.
Rodrigues
said it was “arrogance” of the Raj Bhavan for not appointing a PIO when other
Raj Bhavans and the Rashtrapati Bhavan had appointed one.
If the
governor’s office wants to keep itself out of the act, it must either get the
act amended or move high court and Supreme Court and stay the proceedings
before the commission, Rodrigues said.
After the
arguments, the CIC posted the matter for order on September 24.
Rodrigues had
filed a complaint under Section 18 (1) (a) of the RTI Act alleging that the Goa
Raj Bhavan, despite being a “public authority” in terms of Section 2 (h) of the
act had not appointed a PIO. He said that since it is covered under the
definition of public authority, the failure to appoint a PIO was illegal and
without reasonable cause, and sought orders directing it to appoint a PIO and
disclose information under the act.
Secretary to
the governor, in an affidavit filed before the commission, had stated that the
governor is a constitutional and formal head of the state and enjoys immunity
under Article 361 of the Constitution and is not answerable to any court.
.JPG)
.JPG)
