PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has ruled that the Comunidades of Goa do not come under the definition of a Public Authority under the Right to Information Act and as such they do not come under the purview of the Right to Information Act.
Disposing two petitions filed by the Comunidade of Mapusa and the Comunidade of Pilerne, which had filed petitions challenging orders of the Goa Information Commission to furnish information under the RTI Act, the division bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa M S Karnik and B P Deshpande ruled that “a comunidade is not an authority or body or institution of self government established or constituted (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature and (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government or that it is (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; and (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.”
“We find that the comunidade is not owned by the appropriate Government nor can it be said to be a body which is controlled by the appropriate Government. According to us, the control of the appropriate Government must be a control of substantial nature and mere supervision or regulation by a statute would not make it a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. There is nothing to suggest that the control of the appropriate Government over the comunidade is of such a degree which amounts to substantial control over the management of its affairs,” the High Court ruled.
The two comunidades claimed that they are “not a Public Authority under the RTI Act and hence the Comunidade is not covered under the provisions of the RTI Act.”
The Goa government, however, claimed that, Section 5(4) and 5(5) of the RTI Act, which clearly provides that the State Public Information Officer as the case may be, may seek the assistance of any other officer as he or she considers it necessary to discharge his or her duties properly, the escrivao/clerk Administrator is duty bound to supply the information.”
However, the High Court didn’t concur.
Once we hold that the comunidade is not a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, there is then no obligation on it to fulfill the requirements of Section 4 in maintaining the records or publications stipulated therein or providing reasons for administrative or quasi judicial decisions to the affected persons. The right to information in terms of Section 2(j) is that information accessible under the RTI Act, which is held by or under the control of any public authority.
Furthermore, there is no obligation on the comunidade to designate any Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, to provide information to persons requesting for information under this Act,” the High Court said.
“Once the comunidade is not obligated to designate Central Public Information Officer/s or State Public Information Officer/s as it is not a public authority, there is no question of applicability of Section 5(4) and 5(5) to the comunidades,” the High Court also said.
“In our opinion, merely because the records are in the custody of the clerk or that the information is available with the Administrator, will not bring the Comunidade within the ambit of RTI Act. For the RTI Act to apply, the comunidade has to be necessarily regarded as a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h), for it is then and only then that the requirement of designation of Public Information Officer will arise under Section 5 of the RTI Act,” the High Court said further.
