Central Information Commission
K C Babu vs Spices Board on 22 September, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/SPIBO/A/2022/147262
K C Babu ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Spices Board (Ministry of Commerce
& Industry Govt. of India), Sugandha
Bhavan N.H. By Pass P.8.No.2277
Palarivattom Po. Kochi- 682025. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 18/09/2023
Date of Decision : 18/09/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 18/06/2022
CPIO replied on : 26/07/2022
First appeal filed on : 02/08/2022
First Appellate Authority order : 29/08/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 29/09/2022
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 18.06.2022 seeking the following information:1
"A copy of the Legal Opinion obtained by the Board from its Legal Advisors, with regard io the irregular fixation of pay as observed by the Audit in the case of Sri. K C Babu while serving as Director (Finance) in Spices Board, may please be sent to the undersigned at the earliest."
The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 26.07.2022 stating as under:
"This information cannot be provided as it is exempted u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.08.2022. FAA's order, dated 29.08.2022, concurs with the reply of the CPIO, hence no further intervention required in the matter.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through Video-Conference.
Respondent: Not Present.
The Appellant, during the hearing, reiterated the contents of his RTI application and instant appeal and submitted that he has sought specific information in his RTI application but the Respondent wrongly denied the same under the RTI Act.
Decision:
The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the Appellant and after perusal of records, observes that the Appellant is aggrieved that the Respondent has wrongly denied the information on his above mentioned RTI application. On the other hand, the Respondent in its reply contended that the information sought by him is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. However, vide letter dated 29.08.2022, the FAA has also offered a detailed explanation by giving reasons for denial of information under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act.2
The Commission agrees with the stand taken by the Respondent that the information is held by them in a fiduciary capacity and is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act .
In this context, the Commission relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Central Board Of Sec. Education & Anr. vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors [2011 (8) SCC 497] vide order dated 09.08.2011 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 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."3
In view of the above ratio, the Commission is of the opinion that the reply provided by the respondent is in agreement and same is being upheld by the Commission.
Nonetheless, since the CPIO remained absent during the hearing proceedings to present their case, the CPIO is directed to send a proper written explanation for disregarding the Commission's notice of hearing by not appearing before the bench. The said written explanation of the CPIO shall be sent to the Commission within 7 days of the receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोज पुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 4