ISTM Logo Here

Gandhiji Image here
Thu, May 30, 2024
Hindi Website Button Here
RTI >> Judgments >> CIC >> Exemption >> Fiduciary Relationship
Supreme Court(Fiduciary Relationship)/ High Courts(Fiduciary Relationship)
76 30 Sep, 2011 Shri Vikas Patel Vs. Deputy Estate Manager, General Administrative Department, Mumbai Port Trust, Mumbai.

The Appellant vide his RTI Application dated 27/10/2010 had sought the photocopies of Lease Agreement executed between the Taj Mahal Palace (“Taj Hotel”) situated at Apollo Bunder, Mumbai and the Mumbai Port Trust along with all such Lease Renewal Agreements which were executed subsequently between the said parties. The CPIO of the Respondent authority vide his Order dated 09/11/2010 denied the above sought information under Section 8 (1) (e) of the RTI Act.
The Commission directed the CPIO of the Respondent authority to provide the information sought by the Appellant herein, i.e. photocopies of the lease agreement entered into between the MbPT and the Taj Hotel, Mumbai along with any subsequent renewal agreements.
77 12 Sep, 2011 Sh. Dhruv Kumar, Lucknow vs IRDA, Hyderabad

The appellant sought the copy of complaint lodged with IRDA by PCKL, copies of correspondence exchanged between PCKL and IRDA and copies of correspondence exchanged between Bajaj Allianz and IRDA – information cannot be disclosed as it is a third party information which can be disclosed only in the larger public interest but the appellant has not established any such interest. The Commission held that it is for the appellant to establish the larger public interest which he has not done.
78 25 Apr, 2011 Lt. Genl.(Retd) Avadhesh Prakash Vs. Indian Army.

The applicant filed an RTI application for information regarding the file and all relevant noting sheets on which the recommendations on the Court of Inquiry were examined by the relevant branch/directorate in Army HQ and also some other information.
CPIO informed him that, the notings and remarks fall in the category of communication made in fiduciary relationship and are protected under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. Request for inspection of files shall also have to be denied on the same ground i.e. Under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act 2005.
CIC held that, it is difficult to uphold the contention of Shri Chandrashekhar that the Army authorities are holding the MoD letter in a fiduciary capacity. If this contention were to be accepted, then the entire correspondence exchanged between various offices/departments of the Government will become privileged thereby nullifying the beneficial effect of RTI Act. CIC ordered CPIO to provide the information.
79 17 Mar, 2011 Mr. Rashad M. Shaikh vs Mr. A. M. Bhosle CPIO & Regional PF Commissioner-II, Regional office Employee’s Provident Fund Organization Pune

The appellant sought certain information from the CPIO including provident Fund accounts of the employees – the FAA did not pass any order.The commission issued show cause notice to FAA for recommending disciplinary action for failing to discharge his duty as First Appellate Authority.
80 22 Dec, 2010 Shri Mahant Manoj Kumar Vs. CPIO, Allahabad Bank

The Appellant had sought some details regarding the account of a deceased customer of the Bank. The CPIO had declined information by claiming exemption under sections 8(1)(d) and (j) of the RTI Act. The Commission held that since the legal heir of the deceased account holder has authorised the Appellant to seek information regarding the account, directed the CPIO to provide the desired information. Section 8(1)(e)
81 13 Dec, 2010 Shri Amit Gupta Vs. CPIO, Reserve Bank of India

The Appellant had requested the CPIO to provide information against 17 queries relating to the credit card issued by the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC). The Commission held that the RBI neither has the desired information in its possession nor can it access such information under the relevant law for the purpose of providing it to the Appellant under the RTI Act and it cannot compel the CPIO to collect this information and provide to him. Section 7(1)
82 09 Dec, 2010 Shri Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. CPIO, Corporation Bank

The Commission held that as far as the Bank is concerned, all information relating to the accounts of its customers are in the nature of commercial confidence. Section 8(1)(d) and (e)
83 08 Dec, 2010 Shri R M Jain Vs. CPIO, Punjab National Bank

The Appellant had sought (a) copies of the complete correspondence between the Asset Recovery Management Branch and three other persons listed by him; and (b) some other details about the sale of the immovable properties owned by Sh. RM Jain. CIC directed the CPIO to provide to the Appellant the photocopies of the entire correspondence made between the Asset Recovery Management Brach of the bank and the three auction purchasers. Section 8(1)(d) and (e)
84 08 Dec, 2010 Sh. C.Navarathanamal Jain Vs. Life Insurance Corpn. Of India, Mysore/ Bangalore

The applicant filed RTI application before the CPIO, LIC of India seeking to have a copy of the report submitted by Sh VM Balla in his capacity as Investigating officer. The Commission held that the respondent had been far from transparent and their action in trying to withhold information by providing only incomplete and misleading information, contrary to the spirit and letter of the RIT Act. Section 8(1)
85 07 Dec, 2010 Shri Rajendra Pratap Singh Vs. CPIO, Sarva U P Gramin Bank

The CIC held that the customer accounts held in commercial confidence cannot be ordinarily disclosed. Section 8(1)(d) and (e)
86 11 Feb, 2009 Shri D.K. Mishra Vs. Ministry of Law & Justice

The appellant submitted an application under the Right to Information Act seeking the following information concerning the appointment of judges in the Guwahati High Court from the CPIO of the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India:-
(i) Opinion given by Justice Brijesh Kumar and Justice H K Sema, both judges of the Supreme Court of India at the relevant time who were once the Chief Justice and acting Chief Justice respectively of the Guwahati High Court
(ii) Views expressed by the state of Nagaland
(iii) The recommendation made by the Supreme Court Collegium to the Government of India.

The Commission in ‘Subhash Chandra Agarwal Vs. President Secretariat and Department of Justice’, the exemption from disclosure claimed under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act cannot be held to be justified. The CPIO is, therefore, directed to disclose the information covered by (b) and (c) within a period of 10 working days from the date of receipt of this order.
Total Case uploaded: 86