Team Goemkarponn
PANAJI: The Bombay High Court at Goa has declined to intervene in a case involving a village panchayat official penalised under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, holding that his conduct during the proceedings showed a lack of seriousness towards statutory duties and citizens’ right to information.
The petition was filed by Yogesh Fatarpekar, Secretary and Public Information Officer (PIO) of the Majorda-Utorda-Calata Village Panchayat, challenging an order of the Goa State Information Commission that imposed a monetary penalty on him for not furnishing information sought by an RTI applicant.
While dismissing the plea, Justice Dr Neela Gokhale noted that the official had been granted multiple opportunities to respond to the complaint before the commission but failed to do so within the prescribed time. The Court observed that a reply was submitted only after a show-cause notice was issued and that the petitioner subsequently did not appear before the commission despite being directed to explain his actions.
The judgment stated that the conduct displayed during the proceedings was inconsistent with the responsibilities entrusted to a Public Information Officer under the RTI Act. The Court emphasised that officials designated under the legislation are expected to assist in the disclosure of information and ensure compliance with transparency norms.
The dispute stemmed from an application filed by Sharlet Fernandes of Utorda-Majorda, who had sought access to CCTV footage connected to proceedings held at the panchayat office. After examining the matter, the Goa State Information Commission had concluded that the information had been unjustifiably denied and imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 under the RTI Act.
The commission had also instructed the Director of Panchayats to recover the amount from the official’s salary and initiate an inquiry into his alleged failure to comply with previous directions and notices issued during the proceedings.
Addressing one of the key arguments raised in the case, the High Court held that the CCTV footage in question could not be classified as personal information. It observed that the recording related to an official panchayat meeting conducted in the sarpanch’s chamber and therefore did not attract privacy protections claimed by the petitioner.
Finding the Information Commission’s decision to be legally justified, the Court upheld the order in its entirety, reinforcing the accountability of public authorities under the RTI regime and the importance of ensuring timely access to information sought by citizens.
