Central Information Commission
Ankur Tiwari vs I I M Raipur on 2 April, 2026
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/IIMRP/A/2025/625338
ANKUR TIWARI .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT RAIPUR,
RTI CELL, ATAL NAGAR, P.O.-KURRU
ABHANPUR, RAIPUR,
CHHATTISGARH-493661 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 30.03.2026
Date of Decision : 30.03.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Sudha Rani Relangi
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 20.01.2025
CPIO replied on : 14.02.2025
First appeal filed on : 19.02.2025
First Appellate Authority's order : 10.03.2025
2nd Appeal dated : 03.06.2025
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 20.01.2025 seeking the following information:
"DEAR SIR/MADAM, SUBJECT-Advt. ID: IIMR/Rect./Non- Teaching/2023/01. DATE-15th March 2023 REQUEST FOR- COPY OF WRITTEN TEST FOR THE POSITION OF JUNIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (ON CONTRACT) HELD ON 12TH JUNE 2023 OF MS. BHOOMIKA (JUNIOR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER) SERVING IN Page 1 of 5 STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICE, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT (IIM), RAIPUR. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED COPY OF THE AFORESAID PERSON. THANK YOU."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant 14.02.2025 stating as under:
"Reply: The requisite information is exempted under section 8(1) (e) & (J) of the RTI Act, 2005."
3. Aggrieved by the decision of the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 19.02.2025. The FAA vide its order dated 10.03.2025, upheld the reply of the CPIO.
4. Challenging the FAA's order, Appellant is before the Commission with the instant Second Appeal on the ground of denial of request for information by the CPIO and FAA.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Not present.
Respondent: Shri Chandrakant Swain, CPIO present through video conference.
5. Written statement of the CPIO is taken on record.
6. Appellant remained absent in the hearing despite service. Therefore, with the assistance of the Registry, the Bench contacted the Appellant on phone call who expressed his inability to plead the case due to medical exigencies. Since, a long time has already passed in listing of this Appeal, the Commission instead of adjourning the matter further deems it fit to decide this Second Appeal on merits.
7. CPIO stated that copy of written test of third-party candidate as sought by the Appellant pertains to personal information of third-party which is also held by the IIM, Raipur in fiduciary capacity, therefore, information sought being exempted from disclosure has been denied to the Appellant under Section 8 (1)(e) and Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
8. Heard the party, appeared.
Page 2 of 59. Upon perusal of the materials placed on record, the Commission observes that the contention raised by the Appellant in the instant appeal was denial of written test paper of Ms. Bhoomika under the RTI Act, 2005. In response to which, the onus of the Respondent has been adequately discharged for denial of information in terms of Section 19 (5) of the RTI Act, 2005 which has been explained in the latest written submissions that copy of written test of third-party candidate as sought by the Appellant pertains to personal information of third-party which is also held by the IIM, Raipur in fiduciary capacity, therefore, information sought being exempted from disclosure has been denied to the Appellant under Section 8 (1)(e) and Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
10. The Commission is of the view that the CPIO has appropriately denied the Appellant's desired information i.e. written test of third-party under Section 8(1)(e) which in itself reveals that such information is available in a fiduciary capacity with the Respondent and attracts applicability of Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act. The same can be garnered from a bare perusal of the text of Section 8(1)(e) as under:
"8. Exemption from disclosure of information.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, xxx
(e)information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information;
11. The Commission places reliance on a judgment of division bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandhyopadhyay, (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011) dated 09.08.2011 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has extensively dwelled over the meaning and import of the term ''fiduciary" and held as under:
'21. The term `fiduciary' refers to a person having a duty to act for the benefit of another, showing good faith and condour, 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 Page 3 of 5 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 expected not to disclose the thing or information to any third party....' '22..... But the words `information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship' are used in section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act in its normal and well recognized sense, that is to refer to persons who act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to a specific beneficiary or beneficiaries who are to be expected to be protected or benefited by the actions of the fiduciary - a trustee with reference to the beneficiary of the trust, a guardian with reference to a minor/physically/infirm/mentally challenged, a parent with reference to a child, a lawyer or a chartered accountant with reference to a client, a doctor or nurse with reference to a patient, an agent with reference to a principal, a partner with reference to another partner, a director of a company with reference to a share holder, an executor with reference to a legatee, a receiver with reference to the parties to a lis, an employer with reference to the confidential information relating to the employee, and an employee with reference to business dealings/transaction of the employer...' (Emphasis Supplied)
12. As regards denial of request of information under Section 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, the same is in line with the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case case titled Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commissioner & Ors. (SLP (Civil) No. 27734 of 2012) decided on 03.10.2012. It is also noteworthy that Section 44 (3) of Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act 2023 was brought into force w.e.f. 14.11.2025 which establishes that Public Authority, no longer requires to justify withholding personal data by weighing Public interest against privacy.
13. Having observed as aforesaid, no further relief can be granted in the matter.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
Sudha Rani Relangi(सुधा रानी रे लग ं ी) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Page 4 of 5 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस यािपत ित) (Anil Kumar Mehta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26767500 Date Shri ANKUR TIWARI Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)