Central Information Commission
Shailendra Shukla vs National Fertilizer Ltd.(Nfl) on 23 April, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/NFLTD/A/2024/656935
CIC/NFLTD/A/2024/634437
CIC/NFLTD/A/2024/604688
Shailendra Shukla ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: National Fertilizer
Ltd.(NFL), ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal(s):
Sl. No. Second Date of Date of Date of Date of Date of
Appeal RTI CPIO's First FAA's Second
No. Application Reply Appeal Order Appeal
1. 656935 19.09.2024 08.11.2024 28.10.2024 22.11.2024 19.12.2024
2. 634437 18.05.2024 13.06.2024 15.06.2024 17.07.2024 09.08.2024
3. 604688 11.10.2023 29.11.2023 Nil Not on Nil
record
The instant set of appeals have been clubbed for decision as these relate to similar
RTI Applications and same subject matter.
Date of Hearing: 09.04.2025
Date of Decision: 21.04.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
Page 1 of 9
Second Appeal No. CIC/NFLTD/A/2024/656935
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.09.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. A letter issued by the Corporate Office, bearing reference number NFL/CO/HR/(1)/2024, states that the addition of the MCA qualification was examined at the Corporate Office in consultation with the Corporate Law Department and the Bathinda Unit.
1. In light of this letter, I hereby formally request all consultation-related documents, including any questions raised by the HR Department and the corresponding responses provided by the Corporate Law Department, exchanged between the Corporate HR Department and the Corporate Law Department. This includes all replies, comments, and signatures. The definition of document as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005, is applicable.
2. Similarly, I formally request all consultation-related documents, including any questions raised by the HR Department and the corresponding responses provided by the Bathinda Unit, exchanged between the Corporate HR Department and the Bathinda Unit including legal opinion taken by the Bathinda Unit. This includes all replies, comments, and signatures, with the definition of document being as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. It is pertinent to note that the information requested is not exempt under Section 8 or Section 9 of the RTI Act. Therefore, I respectfully urge you to furnish the requested information at the earliest opportunity. 1.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.11.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-Page 2 of 9
"RTI Act is not the proper forum for redressal of grievances. The matter has been examined in detail and already suitably replied to applicant. further legal opinion in the matter is obtained are exempted under clause 8(1)(e) of RTI Act."
1.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 28.10.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.11.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
1.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 19.12.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/NFLTD/A/2024/634437
2. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.05.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. Please provide a copy of the complete documentation/file (which must contain complete case file having all notesheets, approval copy, case pages, legal opinion taken by NFL Bathinda Unit, Legal opinion taken by Corporate office Noida) Which has been considered for reaching to the premise that authentic MCA degree acquired by Shailendra Shukla from Vinayak Mission University, previously known as Vinayak Mission research Foundation has been declared invalid.
2. Complete communication between NFL Bathinda Unit and NFL Corporate office, Noida pertaining to this issue (The document must contain all note sheets, e-mail communication for follow up / update, IOM issued by Bathinda Unit and Corporate office)
3. Please provide documented reason behind taking second Legal opinion pertaining to this issue.
4. Please provide documented legal reason to remove MCA qualification form applicants record.Page 3 of 9
2.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 13.06.2024 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"Shri Shailendra Shukla is using the platform of RTI Act for redressal of his grievance related to addition of qualification through numerous RTIs.
CIC vide decision in the matter of H.K. Bansal Vs CPIO & GM (OP) MTNL dated 29.01.2013 has also observed that, The RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes and there are other appropriate forum(s) for resolving such matters."
2.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 15.06.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 17.07.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
2.3. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 09.08.2024.
Second Appeal No. CIC/NFLTD/A/2024/604688
3. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.10.2023 seeking information on the following points:
Referring to IOM reference no. NFB/HR/32/9862, It has been stated that MCA degree acquired from Vinayak Mission University has been declared invalid by Honourable Supreme court of India. Vide reply of RTI reference no. NFLTD/R/E/23/00067 it has been conveyed that the referred Judgement has been given by the supreme court on 03.11.2017 (https://www.ugc.gov.in/pdf news/3251872_judgement_03-Nov-2017.pdf)( CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 17869-17870 /2017 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.19807-19808/2012)). While keeping above in consideration, please provide following information under the RTI act 2005:Page 4 of 9
1. Please provide the excerpt/page/paragraph of the aforesaid judgement which has been considered for reaching to the premise that - MCA degree acquired from Vinayak Mission University, previously known as Vinayak Mission research Foundation has been declared invalid by Honourable Supreme Court of India 3.1. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 29.11.2023 and the same is reproduced as under :-
"The applicant is seeking interpretation of information/hypothetical query drawn out of information already provided to him, which cannot be provided under RTI Act."
3.2. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated Nil alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA's order, if any, is not available on record. 3.3. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.
4. The appellant attended the hearing through video conference and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Prakash Ranjan, CPIO & Manager (CC), Ms. Preeti Singh, Manager (HR) attended the hearing in-person.
5. In file no. CIC/NFLTD/A/2024/656935, the appellant submitted that he had sought all consultation documents including any question raised by the HR Department and the corresponding responses provided by the Corporate Law Department etc. and the same had been denied by the CPIO u/s 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. He stated that the information sought cannot be denied by the CPIO as it is related to internal communication between the departments and should be provided. In response, the respondent submitted that the appellant had sought copy of legal opinion, which was available with them in fiduciary relationship, hence, exemption under section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act had been sought. Moreover, the appellant is frequently filing RTI applications and based on the reply provided by the CPIO or complaint redressing authority, framing another RTI Application which is purely against the spirit of the RTI Act. 2005.
Page 5 of 9The Appellant further submitted that in file no. CIC/NFLTD/A/2024/634437 and CIC/NFLTD/A/2024/604688, the CPIO without invoking any exemption clause prescribed under the provisions of the RTI Act denied the information. In response, the respondent submitted that the RTI application has been replied vide letter dated 13.06.2024 and 29.11.2023. Further, in all the RTI applications, the queries raised by the appellant were non-specific and hypothetical queries which are not covered within the definition of "information" under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act.
6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that the CPIO has provided replies to the RTI Applications vide letter dated 08.11.2024, 13.06.2024 and 29.11.2023. Further close security of the RTI applications, reveals that the appellant has sought non-specific information, and opinion, which do not fall within the definition of "information" as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. However, the appellant during the hearing argued w.r.t legal documents which includes copy of legal opinion taken by the respondent which is available with them in fiduciary relationship, thus, the exemption taken by the respondent under section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act by is appropriate In this regard, the attention of the appellant is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of B.P Singhal vs. Union of India (2010) 6 SCC 331. The following was thus held:
"41....Though the Attorney General holds a public office, there is an element of lawyer-client relationship between the Union Government and the Attorney General...." (Emphasis Supplied) Furthermore, a division bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandhyopadhyay, (Civil Appeal No. 6454 of 2011) vide judgment dated 09.08.2011 has extensively dwelled over the meaning and import of the term ''fiduciary" and held as under:Page 6 of 9
"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 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).Page 7 of 9
7. Upon a conjoint reading of the above case laws, it will not be out of place to infer that regardless of the fact that the legal opinion sought pertains to Corporate HR Department and the Corporate Law Department, the existence of a lawyer-client relationship between the two cannot be negated and consequently, the protection afforded under Section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act is available to such legal opinion by virtue of the fiduciary element subsisting therein. In view of the above, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.
8. Furthermore, the Commission notes that the CPIO did not invoke any exemption clause prescribed under the provisions of the RTI Act, while refusing the information in file no. CIC/NFLTD/A/2024/634437 and CIC/NFLTD/A/2024/604688. Therefore, the Commission directs the respondent to provide a point-wise revised reply in above two cases to the appellant, specifying the correct exemptions clauses or sub-clauses as enumerated under section 8 and 9 of the RTI Act, wherever applicable, within 15 days from the date of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission. With this observation and direction, the appeals are disposed of.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 21.04.2025 Authenticated true copy Sharad Kumar (शरद कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Page 8 of 9 Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO National Fertilizers Limited, CPIO, RTI Cell, Corporate Office, A-11, Sector-24, Noida, Distt
-Gautam Nagar, U.P.- 201301 2 Shailendra Shukla Page 9 of 9 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)