IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 425 OF 2008 MRS. SANYOGITA KASHINATH SHETYE THROUGH ATTORNEY KASHINATH SHETYE ... Petitioner Versus THE STATE OF GOA THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND 3 ORS., ... Respondents Petitioner in person. Mr.S. R. Rivonkar, Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Coram:- S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & R. C. CHAVAN, JJ. Date:- 16th July, 2008 P.C. This writ petition is filed against the order passed on 9.7.2008 by the Goa Information Commission. The application of the present petitioner dated 11.6.2008 raising a preliminary objection has been dealt with and rejected. 2. The appellant writ petitioner before us had raised an objection during the course of hearing that the Public Information Officer, who is a party respondent No.1 before the Goa Information Commission, cannot be represented by an Advocate as per Section 5(4) of the Right to Information Act. The argument was not that there was any specific bar but the Public Information Office while engaging an Advocate has not sought permission of the appropriate authority and in the submission of the appellant-writ petitioner, the Village Panchayat could not have been represented in the manner done. More particularly the Public Information Officer should have approached the State or other departmental functionary before deciding to engage an Advocate. 3. In our view, the interlocutory order, read as a whole, does not require any interference in our extraordinary, discretionary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner could not point out to us any provision which mandates that a Public Information Officer must approach his superiors or the State Legal Department before deciding to engage an Advocate. That apart, when the petitioner had not seriously objected to the Panchayat/Public Information Officer engaging an Advocate, then we do not see any reason to decide any larger controversy. 4. As regards the objection that the petitioner was represented by the appellant as Power of Attorney holder and he could not have signed the application dated 11.6.08 raising a preliminary objection, we find from perusal of the impugned order that the application has been dealt with on merits and disposed of as such. In such circumstances, even this issue need not detain us. As to whether a power of attorney holder representing the appellant could sign or verify any pleadings or any application during the course of hearing of an appeal, is a question which need not be decided and would be dealt with in appropriate cases. We leave it open for being considered it later. In the peculiar facts of this case, when the application has been dealt with on merits, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order on this ground. 5. The appellate Authority to now hear and decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. All contentions of both sides, in that behalf, are kept open. The petition is disposed of. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. R. C. CHAVAN, J. ssm.