Central Information Commission
N Madhava Rao vs Department Of Animal Husbandry And ... on 3 March, 2025
केन्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई निल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DAHDD/C/2023/145660
N Madhava Rao ....निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
PIO,
National Dairy Development
Board, Chandralok Society,
Anand, Gujarat - 388001 ....प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 25.02.2025
Date of Decision : 27.02.2025
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Vinod Kumar Tiwari
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 11.10.2023
CPIO replied on : 09.11.2023
First appeal filed on : Not on record
First Appellate Authority's order : Not on record
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 18.11.2023
Information sought:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 11.10.2023 (offline) seeking the following information:Page 1 of 5
"1. With regard to correspondence from Govt. of A.P./APDDCF Ltd. to NDDB with recommendations of the A.P. State Project Screening and Review Committee under DIDF Scheme for providing Financial Assistance to Sangam Milk Producer Company Ltd., Sangam Dairy in the year 2018 and 2019 and other Milk Unions/Producer Companies in Andhra Pradesh.
2. Information pertaining to the file FPS 5237 with reference to the correspondence i.e. Note files, letters and related documents etc. from Govt. of A.P. to the NDDB in connection with the objections raised pertaining to the Financial Assistance under DIDF Scheme to Sangam Milk Producer Company Limited, Sangam Dairy during the year 2020-21 and thereafter."
The CPIO furnished a point-wise reply to the complainant on 09.11.2023 stating as under:
"point No. 1 & 2: This information is available in fiduciary capacity with NDDB and the same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, complainant directly approached the Commission with the instant Complaint on the following grounds:
"...It is further submitted that the PIO clearly admitted that the information is available. The PIO failed to understand the meaning of the fiduciary relationship. The subject information is the correspondence between the National Dairy Development Board and the Andhra Pradesh State Government which are Government organizations. The subject information is pertains to the official correspondence between the National Dairy Development Board and the Andhra Pradesh State Government which are Government organizations. The subject information is not hit by Right to Privacy of an individua! protected under the constitution of India. The subject information will not covered under Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Hence, the PIO failed to perform his duties under the RTI Act, 2005 and rules."
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Complainant: Not present.Page 2 of 5
Respondent: Shri A V Hari Kumar, DGM/CPIO along with Shri Sanjeevi Nagaraja, Sr. Manager present through video-conference.
The respondent stated that the information sought by the complainant are held by their organization in fiduciary disclosure of which is exempted under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. Therefore, reply has been given to the complainant accordingly. Even otherwise, the subject matter of the RTI application is sub-judice before the Court of Law, hence, it cannot be shared till final verdict of the court.
Decision The Commission, after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of the records notes that the instant matter is a complaint under the RTI Act, where no further direction for disclosure of information can be given in the light of the judgement decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur & Another reported in MANU/SC/1484/2011 : AIR 2012 SC 864.
The role of CIC is restricted only to ascertain if the information has been denied with a mala-fide intention or due to an unreasonable cause. Upon perusal of the facts on record, the Commission finds that an appropriate timely reply has been given by the Respondent vide letter dated 09.11.2023 by denying the information under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act. In this regard, attention of the complainant is invited towards a judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled Central Board Of Sec. Education & Anr. vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [2011 (8) SCC 497] decided on 09.08.2011 wherein the Court has examined and explained the expression 'fiduciary relationship', and have illustrated a few relationships where parties were involved in an act of fiduciary capacity including 'customers' in the following words:
"20. The term `fiduciary' and `fiduciary relationship' refer to different capacities and relationship, involving a common duty or obligation. 20.1) Black's Law Dictionary (7th Edition, Page 640) defines `fiduciary relationship' thus:
A relationship in which one person is under a duty to act for the benefit of the other on matters within the scope of the relationship. Fiduciary Page 3 of 5 relationships - such as trustee-beneficiary, guardian-ward, agent- principal, and attorney-client - require the highest duty of care. Fiduciary relationships usually arise in one of 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 for or give advice to another on matters falling within the scope of the relationship, or (4) when there is a specific relationship that has traditionally been recognized as involving fiduciary duties, as with a lawyer and a client or a stockbroker and a customer."
.............
"39. The term "fiduciary" refers to a person having a duty to act for the benefit of another, showing good faith and candour, where such other person reposes trust and special confidence in the person owing or discharging the duty. The term "fiduciary relationship" is used to describe a situation or transaction where one person (beneficiary) places complete confidence in another person (fiduciary) in regard to his affairs, business or transaction(s). The term also refers to a person who holds a thing in trust for another (beneficiary). The fiduciary is expected to act in confidence and for the benefit and advantage of the beneficiary, and use good faith and fairness in dealing with the beneficiary or the things belonging to the beneficiary. If the beneficiary has entrusted anything to the fiduciary, to hold the thing in trust or to execute certain acts in regard to or with reference to the entrusted thing, the fiduciary has to act in confidence and is expected not to disclose the thing or information to any third party."
No mala-fide is established on part of the CPIO. Here, it is relevant to quote a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Ors v. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & Anr. [W.P.(C) 11271/2009] dated 01.06.2012 wherein it was held:
" 61. It can happen that the PIO may genuinely and bonafidely entertain the belief and hold the view that the information sought by the querist cannot be provided for one or the other reasons. Merely because the CIC eventually finds that the view taken by the PIO was not correct, it cannot automatically lead to issuance of a show cause notice under Section 20 of the RTI Act and the imposition of penalty. The legislature has cautiously provided that only in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, i.e., where the PIO, without reasonable cause refuses to receive the application, or provide the information, or knowingly gives incorrect, Page 4 of 5 incomplete or misleading information or destroys the information, that the personal penalty on the PIO can be imposed...."
In view of the above, intervention of the Commission is not required in the matter.
The Complaint is dismissed accordingly.
Vinod Kumar Tiwari (विनोद कुमार वििारी) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) (S. Anantharaman) Dy. Registrar 011- 26181927 Date Copy To:
The FAA, National Dairy Development Board, Chandralok Society, Anand, Gujarat - 388001 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)