GOA GOVERNOR’S PLEA IN HIGH COURT AGAINST RTI TO BE HEARD BY A SINGLE JUDGE

PANJIM: A Division bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa comprising of Justice S. C. Dharmadhikari and Justice F.M.Reis today declined to hear the petition filed by Goa’s Raj Bhavan against the Right to Information Act and directed that the matter be heard by a Single judge. The matter will now be heard on April 28th by a Single judge of the Bombay High Court at Goa. Goa Raj Bhavan was today represented by Adv. Mahesh Sonak and not the State Advocate General Mr. Subodh Kantak.

The Goa Raj Bhavan’s petition had been filed before a Division Bench though such petitions according to the Bombay High Court rules have to be heard by a Single Judge. The High Court registry had infact raised an objection to this effect but the Goa Raj Bhavan had insisted that the matter be placed before a Division Bench.

The petition filed by Goa Governor Dr. S.S.Sidhu’s Special Secretary Dr. N. Radhakrishnan challenges the 31st March order of the Goa State Information Commission which had directed the Raj Bhavan to furnish Adv. Aires Rodrigues by April 30th the information sought by him under the Right to Information Act.

The State Chief Information Commissioner Mr. Motilal Keny in his order had ruled that the Goa Governor was a “Public Authority” and does come within the ambit of the Right to Information Act.

Adv. Aires Rodrigues’s complaint against Goa Governor Dr. Sidhu follows the stand taken by the Goa Raj Bhavan that the Governor was not a public authority and did not come within the purview of the RTI Act.

Adv. Rodrigues had sought from Goa Raj Bhavan under the RTI Act details of action taken on the complaints made by him to the Governor of Goa against Advocate General of Goa Mr. Subodh Kantak. Adv. Rodrigues had also sought copies of noting sheets and correspondence pertaining to the processing of his complaints against the Advocate General of Goa.

Dr. S.S. Sidhu is the only Governor in the country who was not complying with the RTI Act by claiming that he was not a “Public Authority”.