SIDDHARTH Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common point is involved in both these petitions, both are taken up for hearing together. The question which is to be considered in this writ petition is as to whether the public exchequer should be allowed to suffer in the matter of giving advertisement wherein activity of a particular individual is highlighted. In the present case, the advertisement was given on the occasion of the birthday or marriage anniversary of a particular person at the costs of public exchequer. On 25/4/2001 and 2/12/2005, the Division Bench of this Court took cognizance regarding local newspaper reports that is the Navhind Times. The said newspaper had published a quarter page public advertisement released by Board of directors, Management and the staff of Goa constructions Housing and Finance Corporation Ltd. which is a Government of Goa Undertaking, wishing happy birthday and wedding anniversary to the Chairman. The Court took cognizance of the said advertisement as the Court was of the opinion that the said advertisement could not have been issued at the costs of the said public sector undertaking. The Court, therefore, issued notice to the State Government. Subsequently, union of India was also joined as party respondent. Thereafter, this Court passed various orders from time to time.

(2.) ON 25/4/2001 this Court recorded statement of Advocate General to the effect that the Chief Minister of Goa has already issued directions and the Chief Secretary was expected to issue written orders pursuant to the directions of the Chief Minister advising all the Local Self Government Bodies, State undertakings and the other instrumentalities of the State, not to release advertisements of the nature which have been brought on record and which advertisements are intended to give individual publicity to a leader belonging to any political party, or otherwise, out of the funds to be spent by such bodies/instrumentalities. The said instructions are also placed on record, which fact is recorded in order dated 25/04/2001. The State government was asked to inform the Court as to whether any guidelines have been framed in this behalf.

(3.) BY order dated 13/2/2006, the Division bench passed an order for listing the matter for final hearing. By another order dated 18/9/2008 Division Bench had adjourned the matter on the ground that similar issue is also pending before the Bombay high Court at Mumbai as well as a petition pending before the Supreme Court. Today, however, learned Advocates for Central government as well as State Government submit that said matters are still pending disposal. Learned Advocate for the Central government informed the Court that the matter against Central body is pending before the Supreme Court.