welcome to Fiduciary Relationship | Institute of Secretariat Training & Management

S.No.	CIC CASE	DATE OF JUDGMENT	JUDGMENT
61	CIC/LS/A/ 2011/003987 (30.52 KB)	29 Jun, 2012	Dev Kumar Vs. Artillery Records, Nashik The Commission held that as per Supreme Court judgment in DevDutt Case, the ACRs of civilian officers/employees are Disclosable to them, however, this ruling does not apply to the Armed Forces. As the appellant was a combatant in the Army, he is not entitled to the benefits of Dev Dutt Case. In the premises, the appeal is dismissed. Section 8(1)(e)
62	CIC/LS/A/2011/003987 (30.52 KB)	29 Jun, 2012	Dev Kumar v Artillery Records, Nashik Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship — The Commission held that as per Supreme Court judgment in Dev Dutt Case, the ACRs of civilian officers/employees are disclosable to them, however, this ruling does not apply to the Armed Forces. As the appellant was a combatant in the Army, he is not entitled to the benefits of Dev Dutt Case. In the premises, the appeal is dismissed.
63	CIC/DS/A/2011/003245 (92.36 KB)	28 Jun, 2012	Dr. Anshu Agrawal v United India Insurance Co. Ltd Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship The Commission held that it is necessary to strike a fine balance between disclosure of information in larger public interest and simultaneously ensure that the privacy of the policy holder is protected as per the provisions of section 8(I)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC recommended to the CMD Head Office, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai to give directions to all Branch Managers to put up on the Company's website the following information: i). Number of the Mediclaim policy (no names are required to be given). ii). Date of issue of Mediclaim Policy Bond. iii). Date of transfer of the said policy bond to the TPA
64	CIC/AT/A/2010/001069/SS (213.14 KB)	26 Jun, 2012	E.J. Almedia v Mumbai Port Trust Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship — The Commission held that the information as sought by the appellant, does not fall within the exempted clause of section 8(I)(e) of the RTI Act as the appellant has sought a copy of application of Sh. R. Jayachandran for the post of FA & CAO in Mumbai Port Trust. In order to maintain transparency, a citizen has the right to know whether Sh. Jayachandran fulfills the required criteria for the post of FA & CAO in Mumbai Port Trust. Information to be supplied.
65	CIC/LS/A/2011/000134/BS/0361 (52.33 KB)	22 Jun, 2012	Amrik Singh v Department of Posts, Amritsar Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship The applicant wanted to know about a registered parcel The Commission held that the appellant, in the instant case, was merely asking for proof of delivery of the article. The exemption claimed under section 8(1)(e), without showing any satisfactory reason/ justification, is not sustainable and as such the information should be furnished to the appellant.
66	CIC/LS/A/2011/003922 (32.24 KB)	19 Jun, 2012	Rakesh Thakur v HPCL, Mumbai Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship The appellant had sought copy of the dealership agreement between M/S Kumar Service Station and HPCL The Commission held that the appellant is a third party. The agreement signed between the parties, indeed, has commercial confidentiality. Besides, this document is being held by HPCL in fiduciary capacity. No infirmity in the decisions of the CPIO and AA.
67	CIC/LS/A/2011/004212 (42.34 KB)	19 Jun, 2012	R P Srivastava v HPCL Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship The Commission held that the appellant has sought names of officers of HPCL who were given promotion despite CBI/Vigilance cases pending against them. CIC held that such officers do not deserve protection of section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The grounds adduced by the CPIO in denying this information, therefore, cannot be accepted by this Commission. In fact, it would be in the larger public interest to disclose the identity of individuals facing CBI/Vigilance enquires so as to create an environment against corruption in public life. Secondly, if HPCL has spent any money on the visit of Sh. Prem Kumar, Under Secretary, this falls in public domain and warrants disclosure. Similarly, if HPCL has recruited any officers from RGIPT w.e.f. 1.1.2008, this information also falls in public domain and warrants disclosure.
68	CIC/SG/A/2011/001393/BS/0327 (53.38 KB)	15 Jun, 2012	Prashant Ashok Satralkar v EPFO, Naour Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship The Appellant has asked for copies of audited accounts filed by St. Ursula's Girls High School, Civil Lines, Nagpur — the CPIO stated that. the information cannot be provided because it is third party information. The CPIO further stated that the accounts were filed in connection with certain proceedings initiated against the school as such the information is held under fiduciary capacity and is exempt under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act The Commission held that the document has been obtained in course of a public duty and hence cannot be construed to be fiduciary as claimed by the CPIO.
69	CIC/DS/A/2011/001229/RM (67.70 KB)	08 Jun, 2012	H.K. Sharma v Income Tax Department, New Delhi The information relating to PAN and other information such as address, documents submitted as proof of identity and address is personal information of the PAN holder and subject to confidentiality u/s 138 of IT Act, hence, exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants disclosure of such information.
70	CIC/DS/A/2011/002881 (87.43 KB)	06 Jun, 2012	N. Saini v LIC of India, Bhopal Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary relationship The Appellant submitted RTI application seeking details regarding the name; designation of person whose highlighted initials appear in several documents enclosed with the RTI application The Commission held that there is no reason to deny the information sought by the appellant and the CPIO has not been able to justify the application of sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(g) in denying disclosure of information to the appellant.
71	CIC/LS/A/2011/003088 (35.13 KB)	05 Jun, 2012	Satyender Kumar v Directorate General Resettlement Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship The Commission held that the DGR as a public authority is expected to function in a fair and transparent manner. It will not be correct not to disclose the names of empanelled companies/firms. It is quite possible that the number of empanelled companies/firms is very large. If that be the case, then the appellant may be invited to inspect the relevant records. If the number of companies/firms is below 100, then their names and addresses should be disclosed to the appellant.
72	CIC/SM/A/2012/000046/BS/0099 (56.67 KB)	31 May, 2012	Shiv Kumar v Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Delhi Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary relationship The Commission held that it has ruled earlier that details of employees PF account are held in a fiduciary relationship by PF authority and hence this information is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTl Act.
73	CIC/DS/A/2011/001365 & 1366/RM (80.29 KB)	25 May, 2012	Dr. Sube Singh v University of Delhi Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary relationship The appellant sought photo copies of application forms submitted by students applying for DUMET-2000 conducted by University of Delhi The Commission held that it is in agreement with the appellant that the submission of forms does not come under the category of fiduciary relationship, as disclosure of details in the application form is mandatory. However, there is merit in the contention of the CPIO that the form contains information which is personal in nature and is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTl Act.
74	CIC/AD/C/2011/901017/SG/17642 (68.65 KB)	12 Mar, 2012	Dr. Prasanna T. Vs. Dr. Gautam Roy, PIO & Professor (PSM), Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry 8(1)(e) - Fiduciary Relationship The Commission held that disclosing information on matters which are sub-judice cannot constitute contempt of court, unless there is a specific order forbidding its disclosure. The mere claim that a matter is sub-judice cannot be used as reason for denying information under the RTI Act. Therefore, the contention of the Respondent cannot be accepted by the Commission. The Commission further held that the respondent has not adduced any arguments/explanations to show how the nature of the information sought falls within the ambit of section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act and was held by the Respondent-public authority in a fiduciary capacity. In other words, the burden required to be discharged by the Respondent under section 19(5) of the RTI Act has not been done.
75	CIC/SG/C/2011/000760, CIC/SM/A/2011/000926/SG, CIC/SM/A/2011/001111/SG, CIC/SG/A/2011/002909/18137 (81.33 KB)	17 Jan, 2012	S.P. Goyal Vs. Mr. V.C. Ramachandran, PIO & DGM, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, PB No. 3765, 763, Chennai Section 8(1)(e) – Fiduciary relationship – Whether any advice which is given by the lawyer, Banker, Doctor is held by the recipient in a fiduciary capacity The Commission held that the information held by the Senior position such as a Lawyer, Banker, Doctor is held in a fiduciary capacity. Such persons are under an obligation not to disclose any of the information received by them in this relationship, however, advice which is given by the lawyer, Banker, Doctor is not held by recipient in a fiduciary capacity. A patient is free to take the doctor’s opinion and show it to anyone he please just as a client can take a lawyer’s advice and present at any forum that he chooses. Hence, the Commission does not accept the plea of the information being exempt under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.

61

CIC/LS/A/ 2011/003987
(30.52 KB) pdf icon

29 Jun, 2012

Dev Kumar Vs. Artillery Records, Nashik

The Commission held that as per Supreme Court judgment in DevDutt Case, the ACRs of civilian officers/employees are Disclosable to them, however, this ruling does not apply to the Armed Forces. As the appellant was a combatant in the Army, he is not entitled to the benefits of Dev Dutt Case. In the premises, the appeal is dismissed. Section 8(1)(e)

62

CIC/LS/A/2011/003987
(30.52 KB) pdf icon

29 Jun, 2012

Dev Kumar v Artillery Records, Nashik

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship —
The Commission held that as per Supreme Court judgment in Dev Dutt Case, the ACRs of civilian officers/employees are disclosable to them, however, this ruling does not apply to the Armed Forces. As the appellant was a combatant in the Army, he is not entitled to the benefits of Dev Dutt Case. In the premises, the appeal is dismissed.

63

CIC/DS/A/2011/003245
(92.36 KB) pdf icon

28 Jun, 2012

Dr. Anshu Agrawal v United India Insurance Co. Ltd

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship

The Commission held that it is necessary to strike a fine balance between disclosure of information in larger public interest and simultaneously ensure that the privacy of the policy holder is protected as per the provisions of section 8(I)(j) of the RTI Act. The CIC recommended to the CMD Head Office, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Chennai to give directions to all Branch Managers to put up on the Company's website the following information:
i). Number of the Mediclaim policy (no names are required to be given).
ii). Date of issue of Mediclaim Policy Bond.
iii). Date of transfer of the said policy bond to the TPA

64

CIC/AT/A/2010/001069/SS
(213.14 KB) pdf icon

26 Jun, 2012

E.J. Almedia v Mumbai Port Trust

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship —
The Commission held that the information as sought by the appellant, does not fall within the exempted clause of section 8(I)(e) of the RTI Act as the appellant has sought a copy of application of Sh. R. Jayachandran for the post of FA & CAO in Mumbai Port Trust. In order to maintain transparency, a citizen has the right to know whether Sh. Jayachandran fulfills the required criteria for the post of FA & CAO in Mumbai Port Trust. Information to be supplied.

65

CIC/LS/A/2011/000134/BS/0361
(52.33 KB) pdf icon

22 Jun, 2012

Amrik Singh v Department of Posts, Amritsar

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship
The applicant wanted to know about a registered parcel
The Commission held that the appellant, in the instant case, was merely asking for proof of delivery of the article. The exemption claimed under section 8(1)(e), without showing any satisfactory reason/ justification, is not sustainable and as such the information should be furnished to the appellant.

66

CIC/LS/A/2011/003922
(32.24 KB) pdf icon

19 Jun, 2012

Rakesh Thakur v HPCL, Mumbai

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship

The appellant had sought copy of the dealership agreement between M/S Kumar Service Station and HPCL
The Commission held that the appellant is a third party. The agreement signed between the parties, indeed, has commercial confidentiality. Besides, this document is being held by HPCL in fiduciary capacity. No infirmity in the decisions of the CPIO and AA.

67

CIC/LS/A/2011/004212
(42.34 KB) pdf icon

19 Jun, 2012

R P Srivastava v HPCL

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship

The Commission held that the appellant has sought names of officers of HPCL who were given promotion despite CBI/Vigilance cases pending against them.

CIC held that such officers do not deserve protection of section 8(1) of the RTI Act. The grounds adduced by the CPIO in denying this information, therefore, cannot be accepted by this Commission. In fact, it would be in the larger public interest to disclose the identity of individuals facing CBI/Vigilance enquires so as to create an environment against corruption in public life. Secondly, if HPCL has spent any money on the visit of Sh. Prem Kumar, Under Secretary, this falls in public domain and warrants disclosure. Similarly, if HPCL has recruited any officers from RGIPT w.e.f. 1.1.2008, this information also falls in public domain and warrants disclosure.

68

CIC/SG/A/2011/001393/BS/0327
(53.38 KB) pdf icon

15 Jun, 2012

Prashant Ashok Satralkar v EPFO, Naour

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship
The Appellant has asked for copies of audited accounts filed by St. Ursula's Girls High School, Civil Lines, Nagpur — the CPIO stated that. the information cannot be provided because it is third party information. The CPIO further stated that the accounts were filed in connection with certain proceedings initiated against the school as such the information is held under fiduciary capacity and is exempt under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act
The Commission held that the document has been obtained in course of a public duty and hence cannot be construed to be fiduciary as claimed by the CPIO.

69

CIC/DS/A/2011/001229/RM
(67.70 KB) pdf icon

08 Jun, 2012

H.K. Sharma v Income Tax Department, New Delhi

The information relating to PAN and other information such as address, documents submitted as proof of identity and address is personal information of the PAN holder and subject to confidentiality u/s 138 of IT Act, hence, exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants disclosure of such information.

70

CIC/DS/A/2011/002881
(87.43 KB) pdf icon

06 Jun, 2012

N. Saini v LIC of India, Bhopal

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary relationship
The Appellant submitted RTI application seeking details regarding the name; designation of person whose highlighted initials appear in several documents enclosed with the RTI application
The Commission held that there is no reason to deny the information sought by the appellant and the CPIO has not been able to justify the application of sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(g) in denying disclosure of information to the appellant.

71

CIC/LS/A/2011/003088
(35.13 KB) pdf icon

05 Jun, 2012

Satyender Kumar v Directorate General Resettlement

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary Relationship
The Commission held that the DGR as a public authority is expected to function in a fair and transparent manner. It will not be correct not to disclose the names of empanelled companies/firms. It is quite possible that the number of empanelled companies/firms is very large. If that be the case, then the appellant may be invited to inspect the relevant records. If the number of companies/firms is below 100, then their names and addresses should be disclosed to the appellant.

72

CIC/SM/A/2012/000046/BS/0099
(56.67 KB) pdf icon

31 May, 2012

Shiv Kumar v Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Delhi

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary relationship
The Commission held that it has ruled earlier that details of employees PF account are held in a fiduciary relationship by PF authority and hence this information is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTl Act.

73

CIC/DS/A/2011/001365 & 1366/RM
(80.29 KB) pdf icon

25 May, 2012

Dr. Sube Singh v University of Delhi

Section 8(1)(e) — Fiduciary relationship
The appellant sought photo copies of application forms submitted by students applying for DUMET-2000 conducted by University of Delhi
The Commission held that it is in agreement with the appellant that the submission of forms does not come under the category of fiduciary relationship, as disclosure of details in the application form is mandatory. However, there is merit in the contention of the CPIO that the form contains information which is personal in nature and is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTl Act.

74

CIC/AD/C/2011/901017/SG/17642
(68.65 KB) pdf icon

12 Mar, 2012

Dr. Prasanna T. Vs. Dr. Gautam Roy, PIO & Professor (PSM), Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research, Pondicherry

8(1)(e) - Fiduciary Relationship
The Commission held that disclosing information on matters which are sub-judice cannot constitute contempt of court, unless there is a specific order forbidding its disclosure. The mere claim that a matter is sub-judice cannot be used as reason for denying information under the RTI Act. Therefore, the contention of the Respondent cannot be accepted by the Commission. The Commission further held that the respondent has not adduced any arguments/explanations to show how the nature of the information sought falls within the ambit of section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act and was held by the Respondent-public authority in a fiduciary capacity. In other words, the burden required to be discharged by the Respondent under section 19(5) of the RTI Act has not been done.

75

CIC/SG/C/2011/000760, CIC/SM/A/2011/000926/SG, CIC/SM/A/2011/001111/SG, CIC/SG/A/2011/002909/18137
(81.33 KB) pdf icon

17 Jan, 2012

S.P. Goyal Vs. Mr. V.C. Ramachandran, PIO & DGM, Indian Overseas Bank, Central Office, PB No. 3765, 763, Chennai

Section 8(1)(e) – Fiduciary relationship –
Whether any advice which is given by the lawyer, Banker, Doctor is held by the recipient in a fiduciary capacity
The Commission held that the information held by the Senior position such as a Lawyer, Banker, Doctor is held in a fiduciary capacity. Such persons are under an obligation not to disclose any of the information received by them in this relationship, however, advice which is given by the lawyer, Banker, Doctor is not held by recipient in a fiduciary capacity. A patient is free to take the doctor’s opinion and show it to anyone he please just as a client can take a lawyer’s advice and present at any forum that he chooses. Hence, the Commission does not accept the plea of the information being exempt under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.