SECRETARY TO ADVOCATE GENERAL Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Common legal questions are raised in these two writ petitions; therefore, I am disposing of these two writ petitions by a common judgment.

(2.) Whether the relationship between the Advocate General of the State and the Government is a fiduciary relationship? Whether the legal opinions given by the Advocate General to the Government are exempted as per Sec. 8(1)(e) of The Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, Act 2005)? These are some of the questions to be decided in these cases.

(3.) First, I will consider the facts in W.P.(C). No.7979/2010. The 1st petitioner is the Secretary to the Advocate General, Kerala, and the 2nd petitioner is the State Public Information Officer (SPIO) in the Office of the Advocate General, Kerala, designated under Sec. 5 of the Act 2005. The 3rd petitioner is the appellate authority under the Act 2005. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P10 order of the 1st respondent State Information Commission. The 2nd respondent herein submitted Ext.P1 application dtd. 10/6/2009 to the 2nd petitioner under the Act 2005 requesting to furnish a certified copy of the "report" given by the Advocate General to the Government of Kerala in the Lavalin case. A communication, as evident by Ext.P2, was issued by the SPIO informing that such information is exempted from disclosure under Sec. 8(1)(e) of the Act 2005. The 2nd respondent filed an appeal before the 3rd petitioner, the Appellate Authority, as per the Act 2005. Ext.P3 is the appeal. The appeal was rejected by the 3rd petitioner as per Ext.P4 order, confirming Ext.P2 order. Thereafter the 2nd respondent filed an appeal before the State Information Commission, as evident by Ext.P5. The Commission, by Ext.P6 order, directed the 3rd petitioner to file a report, and as directed by the Commission, the 3rd petitioner filed the report on 25/9/2009, as evident by Ext.P7. Thereafter the Commission directed the 2 nd petitioner to appear in person before the Commission with all documents as per the letter dtd. 16/1/2010, and the same is marked as Ext.P8. The 2nd petitioner appeared before the Commission and filed an affidavit, as evident by Ext.P9. Thereafter, the Commission did not accept the contention of the 2nd petitioner that there exists a fiduciary relationship between the Advocate General and the Government. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed as per Ext.P10 order, and it was declared that the 2nd respondent is entitled to a copy of the legal advice given by the Advocate General in the Lavalin case to the Government of Kerala. Aggrieved by Ext.P10 this writ petition is filed.