Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act exempts from disclosure 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.
In the instant case, the Third Party has argued that the information sought in query 1 of the RTI application was exempted by Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act on the basis that the Third Party had engaged the services of a professional architect for designing the layout plans, elevation, etc and paid the architect for his services. Divulgence of such layout plans, etc would not only amount to a breach of contract but also become available free of charge to the Appellant. Disclosure of the sanction plan(s) would be violative of the fiduciary relationship between the Third Party and the architect. The Third Party also contended that the sanction plan(s) submitted by the Third Party was held by the Respondent in fiduciary capacity.
Section 9 of the RTI Act states that without prejudice to the provisions of Section 8 of the RTI Act, the PIO may reject a request for information where such request for providing access would involve an infringement of copyright subsisting in a person other than the State. In the instant case, the Third Party has argued that it had engaged the services of a professional architect for designing the layout plans, elevation, etc and paid the architect for his services. Divulgence of such layout plans, etc would be a breach of contract between the Third Party and the architect. The Third Party has relied on the definition of "artistic work", as provided under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957 and other relevant authorities to argue that disclosure of the building sanction plan(s) would be an infringement of the intellectual property rights of the architect. The Third Party has also placed reliance on the decision of the Commission in H. D. Nijhawan v. PIO, MCD (South Zone) CIC/SG/A/2010/000295 dated 17/08/2010 wherein it was observed as follows:
"The Commission is of the opinion that there is some merit in the contentions raised by the Third Party. The architect has a copyright in the Building Plans prepared by him as per the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957. Therefore, disclosing the entire Building Plan would be an infringement of the copyright of the architect as the right to communicate an artistic work to the public lies only with the Architect. Hence the protection of Section 9 could be legitimately sought."

In the Nijhawan Case, this Commission had accepted the contention of the Third Party that disclosure of the entire building sanction plan may be an infringement of the copyright of the architect and therefore, the exemption under Section 9 of the RTI Act could be legitimately sought. In the instant case, the Commission accepts the contention of the Third Party that disclosure of the building sanction plan(s) may be an infringement of the intellectual property rights of the architect and therefore, the disclosure of the sanction plan(s) may be exempted under Section 9 of the RTI Act.