RTI-All relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary.

The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that relationship. In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. financial analyst or trustee.

The information must be given by the holder of information when there is a choice- as when a litigant goes to a particular lawyer, or a patient goes to particular doctor. It is also necessary that the principal character of the relationship is the trust placed by the provider of information in the person to whom the information is given. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it for his the benefit of the giver. When a committee is formed to give a report, the information provided by it in the report cannot be said to be given in a fiduciary relationship. All relationships usually have an element of trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary.

 CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

Club Building, Old JNU Campus,
Opposite Ber Sarai, New Delhi 110067.
Tel: + 91 11 26161796
Decision No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001343/4053
Appeal No. CIC/SG/A/2009/001343
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant : Ms. Rakhi Gupta
          
Respondent : Smt. Anita Priyadarshini,
           

RTI application filed on : 02.01.2009
PIO replied : 17.02.2009
First appeal filed on : 27.02.2009
First Appellate Authority order : 26.03.2009
Second Appeal received on : 27.05.2009
Information sought:
The Appellant had requested for photocopies of salary vouchers of all daily wages staff of
examination department, regional Centre, Delhi for the period April 2002 to December 2008.
Reply of PIO:
It was informed to the Appellant that the information sought by was exempted under Section 8 of
RTI Act, 2005. Hence the information can not be provided
Grounds for first appeal:
The Appellant had mentioned that this section 8 of RTI act does not exempt providing copies.
First Appellate Authority’s Order:
The information sought by the Appellant was exempted under Section 8(1) of the RTI Act, 2005.
That had already been informed by the CPIO-I vide letter dated 17.02.2009. The appeal was
disposed accordingly.
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:

The PIO has merely stated that the information is exempted under Section 8 of RTI Act in the
first reply given on 17/02/2009. The application was received by the PIO on 05/01/2009. It is
apparent that the PIO has taken her job as PIO very casually. She has not even bothered to
identity which sub-section of Section 8(1) is applicable nor given any reasons. The FAA has also
dismissed the appeal with a mere statement that the information is exempted under Section 8(1)
of the RTI Act. No specific sub-section has been identified nor has any reasons been stated. The
respondent before the Commission now claims exemption under Section 8(1) (e) claiming that
the Salary Vouchers of daily wagers (Peons) is held by the public authority in a fiduciary
relationship. It is obvious that this is an after thought and PIO has no understanding or
knowledge of the RTI Act or alternately the PIO is not serious about her job.
The traditional definition of a fiduciary is a person who occupies a position of trust in relation to
someone else, therefore requiring him to act for the latter's benefit within the scope of that
relationship. In business or law, we generally mean someone who has specific duties, such as
those that attend a particular profession or role, e.g. financial analyst or trustee. The information
must be given by the holder of information when there is a choice,- as when a litigant goes to a
particular lawyer, or a patient goes to particular doctor. It is also necessary that the principal
character of the relationship is the trust placed by the provider of information in the person to
whom the information is given. An equally important characteristic for the relationship to qualify
as a fiduciary relationship is that the provider of information gives the information for using it
for his the benefit of the giver. The salary vouchers of employees cannot be said to be held in a
fiduciary relationship by any stretch of imagination. All relationships usually have an element of
trust, but all of them cannot be classified as fiduciary.
Decision:
The Appeal is allowed.
The Complete information will be given to the appellant by the PIO before 27 July 2009.
The issue before the Commission is of not supplying the complete, required information by
the PIO within 30 days as required by the law.
From the facts before the Commission it is apparent that the of PIO Smt. Anita Priyadarshini is
guilty of not furnishing information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7
by not replying within 30 days, as per the requirement of the RTI Act and rejecting the
application frivolously without any basis in law. It appears that the PIO’s actions attract the
penal provisions of Section 20 (1).
A show cause notice is being issued to her, and she is directed give her reasons to the
Commission to show cause why penalty should not be levied on her.
She will present herself before the Commission at the above address on 27 August 2009 at
2.30pm alongwith her written submissions showing cause why penalty should not be imposed on
her as mandated under Section 20 (1).
She will also submit proof of having given the
information to the appellant.
This decision is announced in open chamber.
Notice of this decision be given free of cost to the parties.
Any information in compliance with this order will be provided free of cost as per section 7(6) of
RTI, Act, 2005.
Shailesh Gandhi
Information Commissioner
10 July 2009
(In any correspondence on this decision, mentioned the complete decision number.)
(Rnj)

Print Page