PANJIM: Adv. Aires Rodrigues today served a legal notice on Goa’s Advocate General Mr. Subodh Kantak calling upon him to forthwith comply with the provisions of the Right to Information Act.
Adv. Aires Rodrigues has given Goa’s Advocate General 48 hours to comply with all the provisions of the RTI Act including the designating of Public Information Officers in his office as was required under the Act or face legal proceedings.
Reminding Mr. Subodh Kantak that the RTI act was enacted to promote transparency and accountability, Adv. Rodrigues has drawn the Advocate General’s attention that though the Right to Information Act became law on 15 June 2005 that the Advocate General has not complied with the provisions of the Act for over five years.
Adv. Rodrigues has in his notice stated that the Advocate General is a “Public authority” as defined in section 2 (h) of the RTI Act 2005, being a constitutional authority constituted under the Constitution of India
Adv. Rodrigues has in his notice drawn the attention of the Advocate General that as a public authority he was required under Section 5 of the Act to designate within 100 days of the Act having become law Public Information Officers to provide information under the Act to persons requesting the same from the AG’s office.
Adv. Rodrigues has also stated that Section 4 the act required the Advocate General to publish and make public within one hundred and twenty days various information details on the Advocate General’s office.
Expressing surprise that the Advocate General had not complied with these provisions of the Act as required, Adv. Rodrigues has stated that as Advocate General holding a Constitutional post Mr. Subodh Kantak should have led by example by duly complying with the provisions of the RTI Act.
Adv. Rodrigues in his notice to the Advocate General has also stated that failure to comply with the provisions of the Act for over five years was a matter of concern given that Mr. Subodh Kantak was the First law officer of the State.
Adv. Rodrigues has also stated that not complying with the RTI Act by the Advocate General as was required was unreasonable, malafide and without reasonable cause.
it is a shame to the legal fraternity,
ReplyDeletethat person of good legal standing is served
a legal notice to comply with truth.
is legal profession stooped so low, as to say
paisa fekko, tamsah dekko
well done adv. aires
punn dusre sogle legal munthai the,
sikkon brut, kai?
kednam uddetolo to dis when judiciary will rule supreme in a democracy?
When Judiciary is diluted, what else can we have that is focussed to upkeep justice and morals?
ReplyDeleteSome murderers and rapists are free and out, other rapists are still languishing in jails. I do not support any of these but why the same law is applied in two different forms? Do we need the Justice system with two different faces?