PANAJI
In an important decision on applicability of Right to Information (RTI) Act to Comunidade bodies, the Goa State Information Commission (GSIC) has held that private bodies like Comunidades are “third parties” and have to be given an opportunity of being heard before deciding on furnishing their records under RTI Act.
The landmark judgment could impact similarly placed private bodies like Mazanias, co-operative societies and private unaided schools in Goa, whose records are accessible to public authorities under the RTI Act.
Allowing a bunch of appeals filed by the Comunidade of Margao, the State Chief Information Commissioner Vishwas Satarkar opined that the Comunidade was entitled to a notice under Section 11 and could claim exemption under Section 8 of RTI Act to deny the information.
The GSIC held that whenever a Public Information Officer (PIO) was required to disclose information that relates to or has been treated as confidential by a third party, written notice must be given to the third party within five days of receiving the request.
The third party must then be given an opportunity to make representations against the proposed disclosure within 10 days. The PIO must evaluate whether the information given by the third party has been treated as confidential, and whether any public interest would be served by the disclosure, as well as the possible harm or injury to the interest of the third party.
Adv S Correia, appearing for the Comunidade, vehemently argued that the Administrator of Comunidade South Zone ought to have issued notice to the appellant under Section 11 of the Act.
He argued that refusal to give opportunity to the third party is as good as depriving a legal right to voice an objection before disclosing sensitive and confidential information.
Echoing the opinion of several High Courts, the GSIC ruled that private bodies whose records are accessible to public authorities under any other law in force are “third parties” and the statutory procedure must be followed before deciding on the requests for information.
“In the present case, the APIO of the Administrator of Comunidade, South Zone did not consider Comunidade of Margao as a third party and outrightly directed them to disclose the information without obtaining their say in the matter, which is against the principles of natural justice” the GSIC held.
Striking down the “Memorandum” issued by the APIO, the GSIC held that it had no proper legal backing and the direction issued by the APIO is excess of powers conferred on him.
“The conjoint reading of Section 2(m) and Section 5(2) of the Act suggests that APIOs are designated officers for receiving the application for information whereas the PIOs are designated to provide information to person requesting for information and the role of APIO is limited,” the GSIC opined.
The matter was remanded back to the South Goa Additional Collector for decision in accordance with the law and in the light of observation made in the judgment.
