Central Information Commission
Mrl K Chaturdedi vs Ministry Of Agriculture on 9 March, 2016
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No. CIC/LS/A/2012/002801/SH
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 22nd February 2016
Date of decision : 9th March 2016
Name of the Appellant : Shri L. K. Chaturvedi,
M.I.G., 35, Rishi Nagar, DisttUjjain,
M.P. 456010
Name of the Public Authority : Central Public Information Officer,
M/o Agriculture, Directorate of Plant
Protection, Quarnatine & Storage,
NHIV, Faridabad, HR 121001
RTI Application filed on : 25/01/2012
CPIO replied on : 26/03/2012 and 03/05/2012
First Appeal filed on : dated nil
First Appellate Authority order on : 08/06/2012
2nd Appeal received on : 04/12/2014
The Appellant was present at the NIC Studio, Ujjain.
On behalf of the Respondents, the following were present in person:
1. Shri Niraj Kulshreshtha, Law Officer.
2. Shri Avnish Tomar, Assistant Director.
Information Commissioner : Shri Sharat Sabharwal
CIC/LS/A/2012/002801/SH
This matter, pertaining to an RTI application filed by the Appellant, seeking retesting report of eight samples prepared by the Respondents, came up today. It is seen that the information was denied by the Respondents under Section 8 (1) (e) and 9 of the RTI Act, Section 24 (1) of the Insecticides Act (1968) and Insecticide Rules1971, Chapter VI, Clause 23, subclause 1 and 2.
2. The Appellant challenged the decision of the Respondents to deny the information and claimed that it is not of a confidential nature. He further submitted that the samples of insecticides that were retested belong to M/s Rahul Organics. Their insecticides are being sold to a number of farmers and the Appellant is also a farmer. Therefore, information concerning the retesting report should be made available to him.
3. The Respondents submitted that the order to retest the samples in question was given to them by a court and a copy of the report has been provided to the court concerned. They further submitted that as per their information, the matter is pending in the court and no decision has been taken. In response to our query, the Appellant claimed that he had checked the position with the court, but was informed that the retest report was not received by them. The Respondents stated that in the CPIO's reply dated CIC/LS/A/2012/002801/SH 26.3.2012, he provided the date of dispatch of the retest report, in the case of the eight samples in question, to the court concerned.
4. We have examined the records and the submissions made by both the parties and note the following observations made by the High Court of Delhi in CPIO, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi vs. Subhash Chandra Agrawal & Anr. [Writ Petition No. 288/2009], decided on 2.9.2009: "57. The Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd Edition, 2005, defines fiduciary relationship as "a relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on the matters within the scope of the relationship....Fiduciary relationship usually arise in one of the four situations (1) when one person places trust in the faithful integrity of another, who as a result gains superiority or influence over the first, (2) when one person assumes control and responsibility over another, (3) when one person has a duty to act or give advice to another on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or (4) when there is specific relationship that has traditionally be recognized as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client, or a stockbroker and a customer"
58. From the above discussion, it may be seen that a fiduciary relationship is one whereby a person places complete confidence in another in regard to a particular transaction or his general affairs or business. The relationship need not be "formally" or "legally" ordained, or established, like in the case of a written trust; but can be one of moral or personal responsibility, due to the better or superior knowledge or training, or superior status of the fiduciary as compared to the one whose affairs he handles...."
It is seen from the submissions made by the Respondents that the retest was done by them on the orders of a court, where the matter is reported to be still pending. Therefore, in our view, the Respondents in this case are acting as an agent of the court that carries CIC/LS/A/2012/002801/SH the status of a principal. The court entrusted the retest of the samples to them because of their superior knowledge concerning the issue. Accordingly, the Respondents hold the information concerning the reports in question in a fiduciary capacity and it is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. Moreover, release of these reports by the Respondents to the Appellant, while these have been submitted to the court and the matter is pending there, would also interfere with the ongoing process in the court. In case the Appellant wishes to raise any matter concerning the interests of farmers, he is at liberty to do so before the court concerned. Since the information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 (1) (e), we do not regard it necessary to consider the remaining grounds for denial of information cited by the Respondents. With reference to the Appellant's submission that the court has not received the retest reports, we note that the CPIO has already provided him the dates on which these were dispatched to the court.
5. In view of the foregoing, we uphold the decision of the CPIO to deny the information in this case under Section 8 (1) (e).
6. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
CIC/LS/A/2012/002801/SH Sd/ (Sharat Sabharwal) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/LS/A/2012/002801/SH