Central Information Commission
P L Banga vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs on 24 March, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीयसूचनाआयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमागग,मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नईदिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/MOCAF/C/2024/104261.
Shri P L Banga. निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
Date of Hearing : 11.03.2025
Date of Decision : 11.03.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 21.09.2023
PIO replied on : 29.11.2023
First Appeal filed on : NA
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 13.02.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21.09.2023 seeking action taken report on letter dated 04.06.2023 and name of advocate appearing on behalf of ICAI:-
The CPIO, ICAI vide letter dated 29.11.2023 replied as under:-
"1. In reply of point no.1 & 2, it is informed that the information asked by you is a personal information and is kept in fiduciary relationship, hence exempted under Section 8(1)(j) & 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. In reply of point no. 3, it is informed that the information asked by you is a personal information and is kept in fiduciary relationship, hence exempted under Section 8(1)(j) & 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to be read with Section 126 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Absent Respondent: Shri Dinesh Kumar Mishra Page 1 The CPIO vide written submission dated 06.3.2025 stated that it is submitted that the name of the Advocate who appeared on behalf of the ICAI is appearing in the Order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court which is in public domain and available on the website of the Hon'ble Madras High Court. Further it is submitted that the quantum of the fee paid to Mr. R. Shankar Narayanan, Additional Solicitor General of India and other Advocates cannot be disclosed as it would harm the competitive position of the Advocate qua other clients. Hence, exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Further, the fees paid, is personal information in nature and is also kept in fiduciary relationship hence, exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(1) and 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Further communication between the Advocate and the client cannot be disclosed under Section 134 of The Bhartiya Sakshay Adhiniyam, 2023. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education Anr vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 OF 2011, relevänt para is reproduced below:
"22. In a philosophical and very wide sense, examining bodies can be said to act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to students who participate in an examination, as a government does while governing its citizens or as the present generation does with reference to the future generation while preserving the environment. But the words 'information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship' are used in section 81)(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. We do not find that kind of fiduciary relationship between 33 the examining body and the examines with reference to the evaluated answer-books, that come into the custody of the examining body Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide intention can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Page 2 Further the complainant has preferred complaint u/s 18 of the RTI Act and if the complainant is aggrieved with the reply provided by the respondent then the Complainant could have approached the Commission by filing an appeal. The Commission therefore is unable to adjudicate the adequacy of information to be disclosed under section 18 of the RTI Act. In view of the foregoing, this Commission now refers to Section 18 of the RTI Act while examining the complaints and in this regard the Commission refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12-12-2011. The relevant extract of the said decision is set down below:-
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
xxx "30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information." xxx "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...." Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally. In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. No further action lies.
Page 3 The Complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)