Panaji, Dec 23 (TOI): In an unprecedented move, the Goa Information Commission has summoned governor Dr S S Sidhu for claiming that the Right to Information Act didn't apply to his office.

The commission took umbrage to the governor's attempt to escape accountability under RTI by claiming the his office wasn't a ''public authority'' as defined in the transparency law.

The governor's stand flies in the face of the Act's scheme under which all government offices, including Rashtrapati Bhavan, PMO and Supreme Court are public authorities. The only organizations exempted are intelligence agencies and paramilitary forces specified in a schedule attached to RTI.

On Wednesday, the commission sent the notice directing the governor to personally appear before the state chief information commissioner at 10.30am on January 4, 2011. This was after the governor's office blocked information sought by social activist Aires Rodrigues on a case related to advocate-general Subodh Kantak.

Rodrigues then moved the state information commission headed by Motilal Keny, a retired sessions judge from Mumbai, on Tuesday. He said he was refused information under RTI on the grounds that the governor wasn't a public authority and didn't come within the purview of the transparency law.

The notice sent to the governor, a copy of which is with TOI, said: ''You are required to appear before this commission in person and not to depart hence without leave of the commission and you are hereby warned that if you shall, without just excuse, neglect or refuse to appear on the aforesaid date and time, failing which the complaint will be decided in your absence.''

The commission has also directed special secretary to governor N Radhakrishnan to be present at the time.

Rodrigues in his RTI application had also sought copies of noting sheets and correspondence pertaining to the processing of his complaints against the advocate-general. The social activist in his complaint said the office of the governor was a constitutional post within the definition of ''public authority'' under section 2 (h) (a) of the RTI Act. Since this was so, he was bound to furnish the information sought. The refusal was contrary to the RTI Act and was unreasonable, malafide and without reasonable cause.

Rodrigues in a November 29 application had sought details on action taken on complaints made by him to the Goa governor against the advocate-general under the RTI Act.

On November 30, Radhakrishnan wrote back refusing to furnish the information saying the governor of Goa was not a public authority. An affidavit to this effect had been filed before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.

Rodrigues countered saying the governor couldn't make such a claim just because an affidavit had been filed in the HC. He was bound to comply with all provisions of the RTI Act. As per law, Rodrigues wrote to Radhakrishnan, also the PIO at Raj Bhavan. In the normal course, an RTI applicant can also appeal to the first appellate authority, secretary to the governor, Narendra Kumar. But he utilized section 18 (1) (b) of the RTI Act, under which an applicant can directly go to the state information commission.

It is the state information commission's duty to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person who has been refused access to information requested under the RTI Act.