PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has strongly criticised the casual approach of a Public Information Officer (PIO) towards transparency laws, while dismissing a petition filed by Yogesh Fatarpekar, Secretary and PIO of the Village Panchayat of Majorda–Utorda–Calata.
Justice Neela Gokhale upheld the order of the Goa State Information Commission (GSIC), which imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on Fatarpekar for failing to provide information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act to a local resident.
The case relates to an RTI application filed on July 31, 2025, by resident Sharlet Fernandes, seeking CCTV footage from two specific time slots on that day.
When the footage was not supplied within the time limit set under law, Fernandes filed a complaint before the GSIC in September 2025 under Section 18 of the RTI Act. She also pointed out that a 2023 Commission order directing similar CCTV disclosure had earlier been ignored.
The GSIC noted that despite several opportunities, the Panchayat Secretary did not file a response. A show-cause notice was then issued, directing him to appear in person on February 5, 2026.
However, Fatarpekar did not attend and instead sent a delayed reply through his lawyer. The Commission held him in violation of Section 20(1) of the RTI Act, imposed a Rs 25,000 penalty to be recovered from his salary, and ordered a departmental inquiry by the Director of Panchayats. He later challenged the order in the High Court.
His lawyer, Advocate Anthony D’Silva, argued that the CCTV footage was exempt under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as “personal information”.
The High Court rejected this argument, stating that the footage related to an official meeting in the Sarpanch’s chamber and could not be treated as personal information.
The Court also noted that due to repeated non-compliance, the CCTV footage was no longer available with the Panchayat. Although Fernandes later obtained it from the Colva Police Station during separate proceedings, the Court said the PIO had failed in his statutory duty.
The Court observed: “His approach appears brazen and casual regarding compliance with the orders passed by the Commission... His conduct shows a complete disregard for citizens’ rights under the Act. As a PIO, he failed in his duty to act in support of the provisions of the Act and instead flouted the directions and orders of the State Commission.”
Finding no legal error in the Commission’s action, the High Court dismissed the petition and upheld both the penalty and the departmental inquiry.
