Oral Order:

1. At the outset, leave is granted to correct the typographical errors appearing in the petition. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.

2. Ms Sharlet Fernandes, the Respondent No.3, appearing in person, has tendered her affidavit in reply. The same is taken on record.

3. By this petition, the Petitioner assails order dated 5th February, 2026, passed by the Respondent No. 2-Goa State Information Commissioner, in Complaint No. 60/2025/SIC, made by the Respondent No.3.

4. Heard Mr Anthony D'Silva, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms Sharlet Fernandes, Respondent No. 3, appearing in person.

5. By the impugned Order, Respondent No. 2 has imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the Petitioner for refusing to provide necessary information to Respondent No. 3 herein, in terms of Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('RTI Act'). The said penalty is directed to be deducted from his salary on or before 15th February, 2026, by the Director of Panchayats. The Director of Panchayats is also directed to conduct an inquiry against the Petitioner for non-compliance with the order of Respondent No. 2-Commission in Appeal No. 354/2023/SIC, and for non-compliance with the Commission's direction regarding the show cause notice. Certain other directions have also been issued.

6. It appears that vide application dated 31st July, 2025, the Respondent No.3 had sought certain information from the Petitioner under the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005. She had sought the following:-

                    "a) CCTV footage/ recording from the cabin/chamber of the Sarpanch on 30/07/2025 from 9:30 am to 1:30 pm.

                    b) Number of the CCTV cameras installed in the Village Panchayat and their working condition/status.

                    c) Retention policy/period of the installed CCTV cameras.

                    d) Name of the Person maintaining the CCTV cameras."

7. According to the Respondent No.3, the said information was not given to her within the prescribed time limit. Hence, she made a complaint dated 08th September 2025 before the State Information Commissioner under Section 18 of the RTI Act. She alleged that the Petitioner refused to furnish the CCTV footage despite repeated reminders. She referred to an order passed in 2023 in independent proceedings initiated by also seeking the same information, whereby the CCTV footage was directed to be given to her. Admittedly, the footage was not provided to her by the PIO.

8. Heard Mr Anthony D'Silva, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr Shivdatt P. Munj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1 State. The Respondent No.3 is the complainant, appearing in person. I have perused the papers of the matter with their assistance. I have also perused the Roznama record maintained by the Commission.

9. The proceedings maintained by the State Commission note that after the complaint was made, on as many as two occasions, the Counsel for the Petitioner appeared and sought time to file a reply, which was granted. Since a reply was not filed despite two adjournments, the Commission deemed it appropriate to issue a show cause notice to the Petitioner. Hence, a show cause notice dated 09th January, 2026, was issued to the Petitioner directing him to remain present in person on 5th February, 2026, failing which he was warned that necessary action would be taken against him. As expected, the Petitioner failed to remain present in person. In fact, his Lawyer now filed a reply to the original complaint dated 08th September, 2025. However, no reply was filed to the show cause notice even on 5th February, 2026. The State Commission was thus compelled to pass the impugned Order.

10. The object of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. It appears that at every stage, the Petitioner, who is the Secretary of the Village Panchayat of Majorda, has avoided providing the CCTV footage to the Complainant i.e., Respondent No.3 herein. Ultimately, because of the passing of time, the CCTV footage was not available with the Petitioner and, hence, in his reply to the complaint, he stated that the same was not available with him to provide to the Respondent No.3. I am told that the Respondent No.3 has now secured the CCTV footage from the Colva Police Station in the proceeding in which a complaint was made against her by the Panchayat. Thus, it appears that Respondent No.3 has now been able to secure the CCTV footage. However, the fact remains that the Petitioner herein has not provided the information to her.

11. Another limb of argument sought to be raised by Mr Anthony D'Silva, is that the said footage, as sought by the Respondent No.3, falls within the explanation under Section 8(1)(j). I have perused the provision. A plain reading of the same indicates that the only material that is exempt is the information relating to personal information. The footage demanded by the Respondent No.3 does not relate to any personal information of the Sarpanch of the Village Panchayat, as the required CCTV footage pertained to a meeting of the Panchayat, which was held in the chambers of the Sarpanch of the Panchayat.

12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned Order passed by the Commission. The Petitioner has failed to provide the required information to Respondent No. 3. He also failed to comply with the directions issued by the State Commission. His approach appears brazen and casual regarding compliance with the orders passed by the Commission. Even after several opportunities given to him to file a reply to the complaint made by Respondent No. 3, he neglected to do so, and ultimately, when the Show Cause Notice was issued to him by the Commission, he awoke from his slumber to file a reply to the complaint. Even on this date, the Petitioner failed to appear personally to answer the Show Cause Notice that had finally been issued to him. His conduct indicates a total disregard for citizens' rights under the Act. As a PIO, he failed in his duty to act in aid of the provisions of the Act and, in fact, proceeded to flout the directions and orders of the State Commission as well. Hence, the Order passed by the Commission, impugned herein, is justifiable.

13. Petition is dismissed.