CAVEAT FILED IN HIGH COURT AGAINST GOA’S ADVOCATE GENERAL

PANJIM: A caveat has been today filed before the Bombay High Court at Goa by Adv. Aires Rodrigues against the Advocate General of Goa Mr. Subodh Kantak. .

The caveat has been filed by Adv. Aires Rodrigues anticipating that Advocate General Mr. Subodh Kantak may move the High Court against the notice issued to the Advocate General by the Goa State Information Commission directing him to appear in person before the Information Commission on Jan 21st in connection with the complaint filed against him for not complying with the RTI act. .

Adv. Aires Rodrigues in his caveat today before the High Court has prayed that no order be passed without notice to him on any petition that may be filed before the High Court by Advocate General Mr. Subodh Kantak.

In his petition before the State Information Commission Adv. Aires Rodrigues has stated that though the RTI act was enacted to promote transparency and accountability and 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 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 further 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 under the Act to persons requesting the same from the Advocate General’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 about the Advocate General’s office.

Adv. Rodrigues in his petition further stated that the failure to comply with the provisions of the Act for over five years was a matter of concern given that the Advocate General was the First law officer of the State.

Adv. Rodrigues has also submitted in his petition to the State Information Commission that the Advocate General was bound to comply with all the provisions of the Right to Information Act.

Stating that not complying with the RTI Act by the Advocate General was unreasonable, malafide and without reasonable cause, Adv. Rodrigues has in his petition sought that the Advocate General Mr. Subodh Kantak be penalized in terms of section 20 of the RTI Act for not complying with the provision of the Act.