welcome to Fiduciary Relationship | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
1	CIC/RBIND/A/2018/102730 (192.37 KB)	03 Jan, 2020	Venkatesh Nayak Vs. CPIO-1:, D/o Economic Affairs, North Block, New Delhi Information Sought The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 09.01.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 07.07.2017 and first appeal dated 17.08.2017:- (i) The total number of representations or petitions or communications, by whatever name called, received by the Government of India, till date, from donors regarding the need for maintaining confidentiality of their identity while making donations to political parties; (ii) A clear photocopy of all representations or petitions or communication by whatever name called, described at para 1 above; (iii) A clear photocopy of the Draft Electoral Bond Scheme prepared by your Department for consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and the Election Commission of India. Decision The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing all the parties and perusal of records, notes that reply given by the respondent no. (2) i.e. Reserve Bank of India is incomplete. Hence, the CPIO, RBI is directed to be more cautious while giving the reply/ information to the RTIs. Further he is directed to revisit the RTI application and give a self-explanatory reply / information to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission further notes that submissions/reply given by the respondent no. (1) i.e. Department of Economic Affairs and respondent no. (3) i.e. Election Commission of India are vague and misleading. It is pertinent to mention that in the earlier order dated 01.10.2019, the Commission directed the CPIO, Department of Economic Affairs to coordinate and consolidate the information and furnish the same to the appellant. However, CPIO, Department of Economic Affairs had failed to do so and not discharged his responsibility with true spirit. During the course of hearing, it was observed that the CPIO of D/o Economic Affairs could not get the complete information from the concerned CPIOs, hence, he could not provide the information to the appellant.
2	CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/609181-BJ + (177.41 KB)	10 Jun, 2019	Mr. Yogesh Kumar Malik Vs. CPIO & Territory Manager LPG – Lalru, Dist. Mohali – 140501 Information Sought The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the guideline based on which the Alternate Educational Degree from Manav Bharti University of Sh. Rajkumar was considered and LOI dated 18.03.2016 was issued for the location of Panchkula, Category O (GP, Date of Advertisement 20.11.2013. The CPIO, vide its letter dated 17.09.2019 denied disclosure of information u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 since the matter was under investigation. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 04.12.2017 concurred with the response of the CPIO. Decision Having heard both the parties and on perusal of available records, the Commission without commenting on the antecedents/ intention of the Appellant for seeking the information observed that it was on the basis of the Complaint filed by the Appellant that the Respondent Public Authority discovered the irregularity in the allotment of LPG distributorship to Mr Rajkumar which was a matter of larger public interest. Hence, all the information regarding the LPG distributorship except personal information of the distributor should be permitted to be disclosed to the information seeker. In this context, the Commission referred to a similar matter decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Arti Devi vs. CIC and Ors Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21397/ 2011 dated 25.09.2012 wherein while deciding an RTI application seeking a copy of the application form submitted by one Smt. Vijaya Mishra for the allotment of LPG distributorship at Tamkuhiraj, Dist. Kushinagar, and income certificate of Smt. Vijaya Mishra's and income certificate of Dr. Ramesh Tiwari, the husband of Smt. Vijaya Mishra, it was held as under: “18. The information which was required by the petitioner certainly had relationship with the public activity or interest of the Indian Oil Corporation as it had awarded the LPG distribution ship to Smt. Vijaya Mishra on the basis of the facts stated in the application. 19. The authorities were not justified in withholding such information by taking recourse to the provisions of Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Act. It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the orders dated 9th April, 2009, 9th July, 2009 and 13th May, 2010. They are, accordingly, set aside.” Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term “Public Interest” held: “22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake [Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)].” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of “public interest’, which is stated as under: “Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus: "Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected." In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows : Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government....” In Mardia Chemical Limited v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while considering the validity of SARFAESI Act and recovery of non-performing assets by banks and financial institutions in India, recognised the significance of Public Interest and had held as under : “.............Public interest has always been considered to be above the private interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected but it cannot have the potential of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio-economic drive of the country...........” However, with regard to disclosing the marksheets of the Third Party, the Commission observed that in Union of India v. R. Jayachandran WP (C) 3406/2012 dated 19.02.2014 the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had held that passport details, copies of birth certificate and copies of records of educational qualification are personal information, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals unless there was an overbearing public interest in favour of disclosure. The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further. Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent and in the light of the decisions cited above, the Commission directs the Respondent to re-examine the RTI applications and furnish point wise information to the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 except copies of the Marksheets of the Third Party within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, as agreed. The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.
3	CIC/SBIND/A/2017/103744 (58.11 KB)	19 Apr, 2018	Ashok Pandit Vs CPIO, SBI, Khagaria, Bihar ISSUE : The applicant sought the total number of KCC loans sanctioned from 5/8/16 till date along with the certified copy of the Land Possession Certificate and land receipts. No information was provided by the CPIO. DECISION : Total number of KCC loans sanctioned for the period requested for to be given. However, LPC and land receipts are personal information of the third parties i.e the borrowers which is held by the bank in a fiduciary capacity the disclosure of which is exempted under sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act,2005.
4	CIC/BKOBD/A/2016/310715/SH (280.57 KB)	15 Feb, 2017	Ashwani Kumar vs Bank of Baroda, Mumbai Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. The Commission held that it do not agree with the Respondents that disclosure of the information, in the manner and with the exclusions mentioned by the Appellant in his application, would breach the bank's fiduciary relationship with their customers, because neither the identity of the borrower nor the address of the property is to be revealed. Further, the Commission agreed with the respondents that compilation of the information for the period 1.42003 to 31.32008 from the files of various loan accounts in the branches of the bank would be a time consuming task, which would disproportionately divert the resources of the bank from its day to day work. The relationship between the bank and the valuer who prepares market evaluation report in respect of properties to be mortgaged to the bank is also one where both the parties have to act in a fiduciary capacity, treating the other as the beneficiary. Thus, the bank would be within its rights to expect that the valuer would not disclose the information given by the bank to him for preparation of an evaluation report. The information sought by the Appellant, even in the form and with the exclusions mentioned by him, is exempted from disclosure under sections 8(I)(e) of the RTI Act.
5	CIC/SH/A/2016/000084 (213.11 KB)	03 Feb, 2017	Satish Goel vs Bank of Maharashtra, Pune Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. The Commission held that in signing the agreement with the bank, the asset reconstruction company has clearly placed trust in them to protect its interests which would be hurt if the bank were to reveal the information sought in the RTI application. Therefore, this information is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act also. No larger public interest has been established for disclosure of the information.
6	CIC/SH/A/2015/001739 (205.76 KB)	02 Feb, 2017	J. B. S. Bedi vs Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. The Commission held that it do not agree with the submission that a fiduciary relationship no longer exists between the bank and M/S North East Trading Corporation because their account stands closed. The fiduciary relationship does not end with the closure of the account in respect of the information/documents coming into the possession of the bank and transactions conducted in the account during the period when it was in existence. Therefore, the information concerning the FDRs sought by the Appellant is exempted from disclosure under sections 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Further, a part of the information concerns the legal opinion given by the advocate of the bank to the bank. This information too is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) because of the fiduciary relationship existing between the bank and its advocate.
7	CIC/SD/A/2016/000021 (93.10 KB)	23 Jan, 2017	G S Ghuman vs HQs 8, Mountain Division Section 8(1) (e) Fiduciary Relationship. Section 10 Severability. The Commission held that the CPIO cannot deny the information as a whole to the Appellant on the grounds of section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. It is not disputed that the information sought also relates to third parties, which makes the application of section 8(1)(e) appropriate, but limited to the third parties only. The parts of the information which pertain to the Appellant's client (Gunner Bikramjit Singh) should be provided to him. In this regard section 10 of the RTI Act can be invoked to severe the records adequately before providing the information to the Appellant. The reliance of the CPIO on section 8(I)(h) of the RTI Act is summarily rejected as the pending disciplinary proceeding against other officers cannot be deemed to be a blanket exemption since the proceedings against the Appellant's client has been concluded and any disclosure of information in his respect will not in any way impede further prosecution of offenders.
8	CIC/SH/A/2016/000107 (130.98 KB)	20 Jan, 2017	Jai Shankar Kumar vs Allahabad Bank, Muzaffarpur Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that the bank holds the information concerning the accounts of its customers, including the documents submitted by them, in a fiduciary capacity and such information is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Since such documents can contain information of a personal nature concerning the third party customer, such information is also exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosure to him of the information sought by him. His personal dispute with the third party customer of the bank cannot be treated as the ground of larger public interest. The Commission upheld the decision of the CPIO to deny the information under sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.
9	CIC/SB/A/2016/000129 (57.80 KB)	19 Jan, 2017	Dinesh Singh Bansal vs Union Public Service Commission Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. Section 8(1)(d) Commercial . The Commission held that since the recruitment process is technically not complete, the information sought for by the appellant cannot be provided.
10	CIC/VS/A/2015/001284 (59.22 KB)	05 Jan, 2017	Satish Malik vs Northern Railway, New Delhi Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship — the Commission relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) 499/2012 dated 09.112012 Union of India & Ors. v Col. V.K. Shad, .wherein, it was held that the file notings and opinions of the JAG branch are information, to which, a person taking recourse to the RTI Act can have access, provided it is available with the concerned public authority. Provision of section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act is not restriction for Government to provide information in the interest of public. Hence, the file notings & correspondence of case file, letters of complaint, record after redacting the names of officers involved in the decision making process can be disclosed. The Commission directed the respondents to provide to the appellant a copy of handwriting expert report in the appellant's case after redacting the names of officers involved in giving report.
11	CIC/SH/A/2015/001973 (221.70 KB)	03 Jan, 2017	Sohan Lal Saharan vs CPIO Oriental Bank of Commerce Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. The Commission held that the bank holds the information the accounts of its borrowers in a fiduciary capacity and it is exempted from disclosure to third parties under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act in the absence of a finding of larger public interest- The appellant cannot be treated as a party to the accounts in question only because he gave a legal opinion as panel advocate. He has also not established any larger public interest for disclosure to him of the information sought by him in breach of the bank's fiduciary relationship with its customers.
12	CIC/VS/A/2015/903080-AB (550.58 KB)	29 Dec, 2016	Ashok Mishra vs M/o IHQ (Army) Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. The Commission held that the findings, opinion, recommendations, directions, objections and observations are all related to the appellant and 12 other military persons, however, they were charged for the same offence. Therefore, the information is eminently disclosable and the PIO shall mask the name and designation of the officers as per section 10 of the RTI Act and provide complete information to the appellant.
13	CIC/MP/A/2016/000821 (41.95 KB)	21 Dec, 2016	Nalin Tayal vs State Bank of India, Chandigarh Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. Section 8(1)(g). Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person. The Commission held that that copies of file notings pertaining to de-panelment of M/S. GATS Financial Reconstructors Ltd. cannot be provided under the provisions of sections 8(1)(e) and (g) which is held by the respondent authority in its fiduciary relationship and disclosure of which would identify the authorities, who might have opined/made recommendations etc. and would endanger their life and physical safety. Moreover, no larger public interest warrants disclosure of this information to the appellant. The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA.
14	CIC/VS/A/2015/000777 (62.62 KB)	20 Dec, 2016	Shailendra Kumar Yadav vs Rail Wheel Plant Stores, Saran Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship The Commission held that there is no confidentiality in the documents sought by the appellant. The CPIO is not justified in taking the defense under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The sought for document is a public document. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant (a) copy of authorisation letter; and (b) copy of Power of Attorney submitted by M/S Pacific Road Carrier which was executed in favour of the appellant.
15	CIC/MP/A/2016/001266 (32.40 KB)	15 Dec, 2016	Ashok Jain vs Securities & Exchange Board of India, Mumbai Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. The appellant, while stating that the regulator, Forward Market Commission (FMC), had ordered forensic audit of CPR Commodities Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, sought the details of action taken on this forensic audit report and the file notings and related correspondence with MCX and Member. CPR Commodities Services Pvt. Ltd. in connection with the forensic audit. He also asked for the forensic audit report along with recommendations made to MCX by Chairman and Director (Vig), Dr Atul Verma, of FMC in connection with the forensic audit report. The Commission upheld the submissions of the respondents regarding the strategic nature and confidentiality of the forensic audit report. The information cannot be provided in terms of section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the decision of the respondents.

1

CIC/RBIND/A/2018/102730
(192.37 KB) pdf icon

03 Jan, 2020

Venkatesh Nayak Vs. CPIO-1:, D/o Economic Affairs, North Block, New Delhi

Information Sought
The issues under consideration arising out of the second appeal dated 09.01.2018 include non-receipt of the following information raised by the appellant through his RTI application dated 07.07.2017 and first appeal dated 17.08.2017:-
(i) The total number of representations or petitions or communications, by whatever name called, received by the Government of India, till date, from donors regarding the need for maintaining confidentiality of their identity while making donations to political parties;
(ii) A clear photocopy of all representations or petitions or communication by whatever name called, described at para 1 above;
(iii) A clear photocopy of the Draft Electoral Bond Scheme prepared by your Department for consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and the Election Commission of India.

Decision
The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing all the parties and perusal of records, notes that reply given by the respondent no. (2) i.e. Reserve Bank of India is incomplete. Hence, the CPIO, RBI is directed to be more cautious while giving the reply/ information to the RTIs. Further he is directed to revisit the RTI application and give a self-explanatory reply / information to the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act, within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission further notes that submissions/reply given by the respondent no. (1) i.e. Department of Economic Affairs and respondent no. (3) i.e. Election Commission of India are vague and misleading. It is pertinent to mention that in the earlier order dated 01.10.2019, the Commission directed the CPIO, Department of Economic Affairs to coordinate and consolidate the information and furnish the same to the appellant. However, CPIO, Department of Economic Affairs had failed to do so and not discharged his responsibility with true spirit. During the course of hearing, it was observed that the CPIO of D/o Economic Affairs could not get the complete information from the concerned CPIOs, hence, he could not provide the information to the appellant.

2

CIC/BPCLD/A/2018/609181-BJ +
(177.41 KB) pdf icon

10 Jun, 2019

Mr. Yogesh Kumar Malik Vs. CPIO & Territory Manager LPG – Lalru, Dist. Mohali – 140501

Information Sought
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information regarding the guideline based on which the Alternate Educational Degree from Manav Bharti University of Sh. Rajkumar was considered and LOI dated 18.03.2016 was issued for the location of Panchkula, Category O (GP, Date of Advertisement 20.11.2013.

The CPIO, vide its letter dated 17.09.2019 denied disclosure of information u/s 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 since the matter was under investigation. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 04.12.2017 concurred with the response of the CPIO.

Decision
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of available records, the Commission without commenting on the antecedents/ intention of the Appellant for seeking the information observed that it was on the basis of the Complaint filed by the Appellant that the Respondent Public Authority discovered the irregularity in the allotment of LPG distributorship to Mr Rajkumar which was a matter of larger public interest. Hence, all the information regarding the LPG distributorship except personal information of the distributor should be permitted to be disclosed to the information seeker. In this context, the Commission referred to a similar matter decided by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Arti Devi vs. CIC and Ors Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21397/ 2011 dated 25.09.2012 wherein while deciding an RTI application seeking a copy of the application form submitted by one Smt. Vijaya Mishra for the allotment of LPG distributorship at Tamkuhiraj, Dist. Kushinagar, and income certificate of Smt. Vijaya Mishra's and income certificate of Dr. Ramesh Tiwari, the husband of Smt. Vijaya Mishra, it was held as under:

“18. The information which was required by the petitioner certainly had relationship with the public activity or interest of the Indian Oil Corporation as it had awarded the LPG distribution ship to Smt. Vijaya Mishra on the basis of the facts stated in the application.

19. The authorities were not justified in withholding such information by taking recourse to the provisions of Sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the Act. It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the orders dated 9th April, 2009, 9th July, 2009 and 13th May, 2010. They are, accordingly, set aside.”

Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi: (2012) 13 SCC 61 while explaining the term “Public Interest” held:

“22. The expression "public interest" has to be understood in its true connotation so as to give complete meaning to the relevant provisions of the Act. The expression "public interest" must be viewed in its strict sense with all its exceptions so as to justify denial of a statutory exemption in terms of the Act. In its common parlance, the expression "public interest", like "public purpose", is not capable of any precise definition. It does not have a rigid meaning, is elastic and takes its colour from the statute in which it occurs, the concept varying with time and state of society and its needs (State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh([AIR 1952 SC 252]). It also means the general welfare of the public that warrants recognition and protection; something in which the public as a whole has a stake
[Black's Law Dictionary (8th Edn.)].”

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Pandey vs The State Of West Bengal (decided on 18 November, 2003Writ Petition (crl.) 199 of 2003) had made reference to the following texts for defining the meaning of “public interest’, which is stated as under:

“Strouds Judicial Dictionary, Volume 4 (IV Edition),'Public Interest' is defined thus:
"Public Interest (1) a matter of public or general interest does not mean that which is interesting as gratifying curiosity or a love of information or amusement but that in which a class of the community have a pecuniary interest, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected."

In Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition), "public interest" is defined as follows :

Public Interest something in which the public, or some interest by which their legal rights or liabilities are affected. It does not mean anything the particular localities, which may be affected by the matters in question. Interest shared by national government....”

In Mardia Chemical Limited v. Union of India (2004) 4 SCC 311, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while considering the validity of SARFAESI Act and recovery of non-performing assets by banks and financial institutions in India, recognised the significance of Public Interest and had held as under :

“.............Public interest has always been considered to be above the private interest. Interest of an individual may, to some extent, be affected but it cannot have the potential of taking over the public interest having an impact in the socio-economic drive of the country...........”

However, with regard to disclosing the marksheets of the Third Party, the Commission observed that in Union of India v. R. Jayachandran WP (C) 3406/2012 dated 19.02.2014 the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi had held that passport details, copies of birth certificate and copies of records of educational qualification are personal information, the disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of individuals unless there was an overbearing public interest in favour of disclosure.

The Appellant was not present to contest the submissions of the Respondent or to substantiate his claims further.

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the Respondent and in the light of the decisions cited above, the Commission directs the Respondent to re-examine the RTI applications and furnish point wise information to the Appellant in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 except copies of the Marksheets of the Third Party within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, as agreed.

The Appeals stand disposed accordingly.

3

CIC/SBIND/A/2017/103744
(58.11 KB) pdf icon

19 Apr, 2018

Ashok Pandit Vs CPIO, SBI, Khagaria, Bihar

ISSUE : The applicant sought the total number of KCC loans sanctioned from 5/8/16 till date along with the certified copy of the Land Possession Certificate and land receipts. No information was provided by the CPIO.
DECISION : Total number of KCC loans sanctioned for the period requested for to be given. However, LPC and land receipts are personal information of the third parties i.e the borrowers which is held by the bank in a fiduciary capacity the disclosure of which is exempted under sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act,2005.

4

CIC/BKOBD/A/2016/310715/SH
(280.57 KB) pdf icon

15 Feb, 2017

Ashwani Kumar vs Bank of Baroda, Mumbai

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. The Commission held that it do not agree with the Respondents that disclosure of the information, in the manner and with the exclusions mentioned by the Appellant in his application, would breach the bank's fiduciary relationship with their customers, because neither the identity of the borrower nor the address of the property is to be revealed. Further, the Commission agreed with the respondents that compilation of the information for the period 1.42003 to 31.32008 from the files of various loan accounts in the branches of the bank would be a time consuming task, which would disproportionately divert the resources of the bank from its day to day work. The relationship between the bank and the valuer who prepares market evaluation report in respect of properties to be mortgaged to the bank is also one where both the parties have to act in a fiduciary capacity, treating the other as the beneficiary. Thus, the bank would be within its rights to expect that the valuer would not disclose the information given by the bank to him for preparation of an evaluation report. The information sought by the Appellant, even in the form and with the exclusions mentioned by him, is exempted from disclosure under sections 8(I)(e) of the RTI Act.

5

CIC/SH/A/2016/000084
(213.11 KB) pdf icon

03 Feb, 2017

Satish Goel vs Bank of Maharashtra, Pune

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. The Commission held that in signing the agreement with the bank, the asset reconstruction company has clearly placed trust in them to protect its interests which would be hurt if the bank were to reveal the information sought in the RTI application. Therefore, this information is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act also. No larger public interest has been established for disclosure of the information.

6

CIC/SH/A/2015/001739
(205.76 KB) pdf icon

02 Feb, 2017

J. B. S. Bedi vs Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. The Commission held that it do not agree with the submission that a fiduciary relationship no longer exists between the bank and M/S North East Trading Corporation because their account stands closed. The fiduciary relationship does not end with the closure of the account in respect of the information/documents coming into the possession of the bank and transactions conducted in the account during the period when it was in existence. Therefore, the information concerning the FDRs sought by the Appellant is exempted from disclosure under sections 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Further, a part of the information concerns the legal opinion given by the advocate of the bank to the bank. This information too is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) because of the fiduciary relationship existing between the bank and its advocate.

7

CIC/SD/A/2016/000021
(93.10 KB) pdf icon

23 Jan, 2017

G S Ghuman vs HQs 8, Mountain Division

Section 8(1) (e) Fiduciary Relationship. Section 10 Severability. The Commission held that the CPIO cannot deny the information as a whole to the Appellant on the grounds of section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. It is not disputed that the information sought also relates to third parties, which makes the application of section 8(1)(e) appropriate, but limited to the third parties only. The parts of the information which pertain to the Appellant's client (Gunner Bikramjit Singh) should be provided to him. In this regard section 10 of the RTI Act can be invoked to severe the records adequately before providing the information to the Appellant. The reliance of the CPIO on section 8(I)(h) of the RTI Act is summarily rejected as the pending disciplinary proceeding against other officers cannot be deemed to be a blanket exemption since the proceedings against the Appellant's client has been concluded and any disclosure of information in his respect will not in any way impede further prosecution of offenders.

8

CIC/SH/A/2016/000107
(130.98 KB) pdf icon

20 Jan, 2017

Jai Shankar Kumar vs Allahabad Bank, Muzaffarpur

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. Section 8(1)(j) Personal Information. The Commission held that the bank holds the information concerning the accounts of its customers, including the documents submitted by them, in a fiduciary capacity and such information is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Since such documents can contain information of a personal nature concerning the third party customer, such information is also exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The Appellant has not established any larger public interest for disclosure to him of the information sought by him. His personal dispute with the third party customer of the bank cannot be treated as the ground of larger public interest. The Commission upheld the decision of the CPIO to deny the information under sections 8(1)(e) and (j) of the RTI Act.

9

CIC/SB/A/2016/000129
(57.80 KB) pdf icon

19 Jan, 2017

Dinesh Singh Bansal vs Union Public Service Commission

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. Section 8(1)(d) Commercial . The Commission held that since the recruitment process is technically not complete, the information sought for by the appellant cannot be provided.

10

CIC/VS/A/2015/001284
(59.22 KB) pdf icon

05 Jan, 2017

Satish Malik vs Northern Railway, New Delhi

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship — the Commission relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) 499/2012 dated 09.112012 Union of India & Ors. v Col. V.K. Shad, .wherein, it was held that the file notings and opinions of the JAG branch are information, to which, a person taking recourse to the RTI Act can have access, provided it is available with the concerned public authority. Provision of section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act is not restriction for Government to provide information in the interest of public. Hence, the file notings & correspondence of case file, letters of complaint, record after redacting the names of officers involved in the decision making process can be disclosed. The Commission directed the respondents to provide to the appellant a copy of handwriting expert report in the appellant's case after redacting the names of officers involved in giving report.

11

CIC/SH/A/2015/001973
(221.70 KB) pdf icon

03 Jan, 2017

Sohan Lal Saharan vs CPIO Oriental Bank of Commerce

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. The Commission held that the bank holds the information the accounts of its borrowers in a fiduciary capacity and it is exempted from disclosure to third parties under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act in the absence of a finding of larger public interest- The appellant cannot be treated as a party to the accounts in question only because he gave a legal opinion as panel advocate. He has also not established any larger public interest for disclosure to him of the information sought by him in breach of the bank's fiduciary relationship with its customers.

12

CIC/VS/A/2015/903080-AB
(550.58 KB) pdf icon

29 Dec, 2016

Ashok Mishra vs M/o IHQ (Army)

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. The Commission held that the findings, opinion, recommendations, directions, objections and observations are all related to the appellant and 12 other military persons, however, they were charged for the same offence.

Therefore, the information is eminently disclosable and the PIO shall mask the name and designation of the officers as per section 10 of the RTI Act and provide complete information to the appellant.

13

CIC/MP/A/2016/000821
(41.95 KB) pdf icon

21 Dec, 2016

Nalin Tayal vs State Bank of India, Chandigarh

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. Section 8(1)(g). Information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person.

The Commission held that that copies of file notings pertaining to de-panelment of M/S. GATS Financial Reconstructors Ltd. cannot be provided under the provisions of sections 8(1)(e) and (g) which is held by the respondent authority in its fiduciary relationship and disclosure of which would identify the authorities, who might have opined/made recommendations etc. and would endanger their life and physical safety. Moreover, no larger public interest warrants disclosure of this information to the appellant. The Commission upheld the decision of the FAA.

14

CIC/VS/A/2015/000777
(62.62 KB) pdf icon

20 Dec, 2016

Shailendra Kumar Yadav vs Rail Wheel Plant Stores, Saran

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship

The Commission held that there is no confidentiality in the documents sought by the appellant. The CPIO is not justified in taking the defense under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The sought for document is a public document. The respondent is directed to provide to the appellant (a) copy of authorisation letter; and (b) copy of Power of Attorney submitted by M/S Pacific Road Carrier which was executed in favour of the appellant.

15

CIC/MP/A/2016/001266
(32.40 KB) pdf icon

15 Dec, 2016

Ashok Jain vs Securities & Exchange Board of India, Mumbai

Section 8(1)(e) Fiduciary Relationship. The appellant, while stating that the regulator, Forward Market Commission (FMC), had ordered forensic audit of CPR Commodities Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, sought the details of action taken on this forensic audit report and the file notings and related correspondence with MCX and Member. CPR Commodities Services Pvt. Ltd. in connection with the forensic audit. He also asked for the forensic audit report along with recommendations made to MCX by Chairman and Director (Vig), Dr Atul Verma, of FMC in connection with the forensic audit report.

The Commission upheld the submissions of the respondents regarding the strategic nature and confidentiality of the forensic audit report. The information cannot be provided in terms of section 8(1)(a) of the RTI Act. The Commission upheld the decision of the respondents.