PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER Vs. MANOHAR PARRIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order dated 22nd October 2008, the Court directed that Writ Petition No. 478 of 2008 be fixed for final disposal at an early date. The petition was accordingly placed on board before us for final hearing. By an order dated 6th June 2011, the Court directed that Writ Petition No. 237 of 2011 be put up along with Writ Petition No. 478 of 2008. Accordingly these petitions are heard and disposed of by this common judgment as they involve common questions of law.

(2.) In July/August 2007, some changes occurred in the political equations and political situation in the State of Goa resulting in the Governor of Goa directing the Chief Minister to prove his majority in the Legislative Assembly. A resolution of the Vote of Confidence was passed in the Legislative Assembly, and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly made a report to the Governor. In turn, the Governor of Goa sent his report to the Union Home Minister. On September 21, 2007, Mr. Manohar Parrikar, the Leader of Opposition (respondent no.1), made an application to the Public Information Officer (for short "the PIO") in the Secretariat of the Governor of Goa, asking for a copy of the report sent by the Governor of Goa to the Union Home Minister regarding the political situation in Goa during the period from 24th July 2007 to 14th August 2007. By a letter dated 22nd December 2007, the PIO in the Secretariat of the Governor of Goa declined to furnish the copy and wrote: "I am to inform that these communications are highly sensitive, and secret in nature. It is regretted that the same cannot be supplied in accordance with the exemption allowed under the Right to Information Act, 2005". Aggrieved by the refusal, the 1st respondent filed an appeal before the Secretary to the Governor being the Appellate Authority. By its order dated 4th April 2008, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal. In second appeal, the Goa State Information Commission (for short "the GSIC") set aside the order of the first appellate authority by partly allowing the appeal. It held that the report made by the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Goa to the Governor of Goa cannot be disclosed. It, however, directed the PIO to furnish to the respondent no.1 the other information i.e. a copy of the report sent by the Governor of Goa to the Union Home Minister on the political situation during the period from 24th July 2007 to 14th August 2007, after severing the report of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. Aggrieved by the decision, the petitioners are before us.

(3.) The respondent no.3 is a practising advocate. He appears to have a grievance against the conduct of the Advocate General of the State of Goa and the fee charged by him to the Government. He made several complaints/representations to the Governor of Goa against the Advocate General of Goa and was not satisfied with the action taken (rather the inaction) on his complaints/representations. Therefore, by a letter dated 29th November 2010, he applied to the PIO in the secretariat of the Governor of Goa requesting him to furnish him the details of the action taken on his complaints/representations and also asked for the copies of all notings and correspondence on the complaints/ representations made by him. By his reply dated 29th November 2010 the PIO informed the petitioner that an affidavit had been filed by his office in another matter in the Hon'ble High Court, Bombay at its bench at Panaji that H.E. Governor is not a public authority under the Right to Information Act 2005, and that pending the decision of the High Court in that matter, it was not possible for him to respond to his request. Though the number of the other matter in which the affidavit had been filed was not mentioned in the reply, it appears that the PIO was referring to the affidavit filed in the connected Writ Petition No.278 of 2008. Not satisfied with the reply of the PIO, respondent no.3 filed a complaint under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short "the RTI Act") to the GSIC. Upon receipt of the complaint, the GSIC issued a notice to the PIO as also to the Governor of Goa requiring them to appear before the Commission in person on 4 January 2011. Secretary to the Governor of Goa, on behalf of the Governor of Goa, filed a reply claiming immunity under Article 361 of the Constitution of India and contending that the Governor cannot be arrayed as a party respondent in any proceedings. The PIO submitted a separate reply contending that the Governor was not a public authority under the RTI Act. He also contended that if the respondent no.3 was aggrieved by the communication of the PIO dated 30th November 2010, he ought to have filed an appeal and the complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act was not maintainable. By an order dated 31st March 2011, the GSIC accepted the contention that the immunity granted to the Governor under Article 361(1) of the Constitution of India was complete and the Governor was not answerable to any court and the complaint made against him was not maintainable. The GSIC however rejected the contention that Governor was not a public authority under the RTI Act. The GSIC accordingly remanded the matter back to the PIO to deal with the application of the respondent no.3 dated 29 November 2010 in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by this direction, the Special Secretary to the Governor has filed the Writ Petition No.237 of 2011. Concessions of the respondent no.1 in W.P. NO. 478 of 2008