ORDER 1. Issue notice. 2. Mr. Vipin Kumar Jai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second Respondent, accepted notice. By consent, we have taken up the Transfer Petition for final disposal. 3. By this transfer petition, the petitioner has sought the transfer of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution - Writ Petition No.1109 of 2018 ( Secretary to Governor, Goa Raj Bhavan, Panaji Vs. Chief Information Commissioner, Goa Information Commission ) pending before the High Court of Bombay at Goa to this Court. 4. The record indicates that an earlier Special Leave Petition [SLP(C) No.33124/2011 titled Public Information Officer Vs. Manohar Parrikar & Ors .] was entertained by this Court on 8 December 2011 against a judgment of the Bombay High Court on the same issue, namely, the applicability of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the office of the Governor. 5. Considering the importance of the issues raised, the following questions of law were formulated: "(1) Whether the Governor is a "public authority" within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act? Whether by reason of being included in the definition of "competent authority" the Governor stands excluded from the definition of "public authority" under the RTI Act? (2) Whether the Governor is a sovereign and being sovereign, no direction can be issued to the Governor for disclosure of any information under the RTI Act? (3) What is the extent of immunity enjoyed by the Governor under Article 361 of the Constitution of India? Whether in view of such immunity, no direction can be issued and no order can be passed under the RTI Act, which has an effect of requiring the Governor to disclose any information under the RTI Act? (4) Whether the information sought for is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act? (5) Whether the GSIC, which had become a single member body on account of retirement of one of the two members constituting it when it passed the order dated 18th March 2011 (impugned in W.P. No.237 of 2011), could not have passed it in the absence of a second member?" 5. The above order was passed by a three-Judge Bench of this Court which was of the view that the above questions required consideration. 6. The above order was passed by a three-Judge Bench of this Court which was of the view that the above questions required consideration. 6. In the above proceedings, on 1 March 2012, the learned Attorney General for India was requested to assist the Court, since important questions in regard to the interpretation of the Constitution had been raised. 7. The earlier Special Leave Petition, however, was rendered infructuous and on 30 January 2018, a two-Judge Bench of this Court passed the following order: "1. It is submitted at Bar that nothing further survives in these matters. As the matters have become infructuous, information would serve no purpose. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed as having become infructuous. Pending applications stand disposed of. 2. Since the matters have become infructuous, the impugned judgment is not to be enforced and not to be treated as a precedent for any other case. Question of law is kept open." 8. A fresh writ petition has now been filed before the High Court challenging an order passed by the Chief Information Commissioner. The issue pertains to the amenability of the office of the Governor to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The issue is pending before a learned Single Judge of the High Court. The learned Single Judge adjourned the hearing on 29 January 2019 to await the outcome of the present Transfer Petition. 9. Having regard to the circumstances which have been set out above, we are of the view that it would be appropriate and proper if the writ petition pending before the Bombay High Court is transferred to this Court. We order accordingly. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent, who is the original petitioner, has submitted that since the issue has effectively remained pending a decision for nearly ten years, it would be appropriate if it is resolved expeditiously so as to bring finality to the matter. 11. The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Registrar (Judicial) at the Seat of the Bombay High Court at Goa so that the papers can be transmitted to this Court expeditiously. 12. The transfer petition is accordingly disposed of.